# Diversity of romantic experiences in late adolescence and their contribution to identity formation

Cécile Kindelberger, Pascal Mallet, Jean-Michel Galharret

► To cite this version:

Cécile Kindelberger, Pascal Mallet, Jean-Michel Galharret. Diversity of romantic experiences in late adolescence and their contribution to identity formation. Social Development, 2020, 29 (2), pp.615-634. 10.1111/sode.12415. hal-02890126

HAL Id: hal-02890126

https://nantes-universite.hal.science/hal-02890126v1

Submitted on 11 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Diversity of romantic experiences in late adolescence and their contribution to identity formation

Cécile Kindelberger

BePsyLab, University of Nantes, France

Pascal Mallet

University of West Paris, Nanterre, France

Jean-Michel Galharret

CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathématiques Jean Leray (LMJL-UMR 6629), Nantes, France

This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the journal. The final version is now published in *Social Development*. The exact reference is: Kindelberger, C., Mallet, P. & Galharret, J-M. (2020). Diversity of romantic experiences in late adolescence and their contribution to identity formation. *Social Development*, 29(2), 615-634. DOI:10.1111/sode.12415
Abstract

Romance constitutes a central experience in adolescence, which can take several forms including (a) serious romance with a steady partner, (b) casual and short-lived dating, and (c) pending experiences of romantic thoughts and attempts. Using a three-way longitudinal design, the present study examined the gender differences and developmental changes of these romantic experiences, and their cross-lagged associations with identity processes, throughout one year in late adolescence. 389 students (63% girls) filled out questionnaires about their romantic experiences and identity processes. Girls reported more serious romance than did boys, who reported more casual dating and pending experiences. Serious romance increased over the year for both genders, while casual dating and pending experiences continued to rise only for boys. The cross-lagged model highlighted that serious romantic experience positively predicted identity commitments and exploration in depth, whereas identity exploration in breadth positively predicted casual dating. This pattern was stable over the three time-points and across gender and age groups. Overall, this study invites consideration of more diverse romantic experiences than those associated with tangible involvement. We discuss the contribution of romantic experiences to the identity dynamic.

*Keywords:* Romantic experiences; Identity processes; Adolescent development; Gender differences; Longitudinal design
Introduction

Since the end of the 20th century, growing research on adolescent romance has better captured
its significance for social and emotional development. Adolescents themselves acknowledge
that romantic experiences are central in their lives while empirical studies indicate that they
spend time on activities related to romance such as thinking about a current or desired lover,
chatting about this topic with peers or interacting with a romantic partner (Furman & Collins,
2009). To date, most studies have focused on adolescents' current involvement in romantic
relationships to explore their characteristics and their contribution to development (e.g. De
Goede, Branje, van Duin, VanderValk, & Meeus, 2012; Kerpelman et al., 2012). However,
longitudinal studies about romantic involvement and the duration of relationships revealed
that a significant proportion of adolescents, even in their late teens, are not involved in either
steady or casual romantic relationships (Boisvert & Poulin, 2016; Rauer, Pettit, Lansford,
Bates, & Dodge, 2013). This finding advocates studying the diversity of romantic
experiences, not only recognized romantic relationships, both casual and serious, but also
unfulfilled or unsuccessful attempts to establish a relationship, in other words "pending"
romantic experiences. Feelings of love for someone can clearly exist outside the context of a
current romantic relationship and could be associated with dating attempts (Furman &
Collins, 2009; Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 2001). These pending romantic experiences,
characterized by romantic thoughts, such as fantasies or unilateral feelings of love toward a
desired peer, can cause mood swings, contributing to emotional dysregulation that adolescents
have to face (Larson, Clore, & Wood, 1999). However, such romantic experiences have been
drastically understated in the literature. In order to better capture the diversity of romantic
experiences, the first aim of the present study was to situate the pending romantic experience
among the other forms of romantic experiences, i.e. serious romance and casual dating, and to
describe their developmental course during late adolescence.

For some scholars, adolescent romantic experiences prepare for adult roles and contribute to identity clarification (Brown, Feiring, & Furman, 1999; Zani, 1993) whereas for others, the developmental path rather goes from identity formation to romantic experiences, in accordance with Erikson's assumption (1968; e.g. Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010). Few studies have empirically examined these hypotheses and most of them used a cross-sectional design (e.g. Berman, Weems, Rodriguez, & Samora, 2006; Kerpelman et al., 2012). Moreover, they focused rather on the ongoing intimate romantic relationship, ignoring other forms of romantic experiences. Overall, the second aim of the present study was to examine the longitudinal associations between identity development during late adolescence and the three kinds of romantic experiences mentioned above: serious, casual, and pending. To do this, a short-term longitudinal design was used including three waves of data.

## The diversity of romantic experiences

Several authors have posited the variety of romantic experiences, including those outside of an ongoing and reciprocal romantic relationship with a specific partner, such as fantasies (e.g. Brown et al., 1999). The concept of “romantic experience” stresses the manner in which the romantic relationships are perceived and integrated, focusing on the dimensions of cognitive and emotional processes described by Collins (1993). This approach highlights the significance of romantic relationships for the adolescents themselves, whatever the reality of the partner. Two main experiences were identified by the systematic study of the form, duration and nature of adolescent romantic relationships: the serious romance with one steady partner and casual dating in short-term relationship(s) in which few emotions and affects are committed (Brown et al., 1999; Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dubé, 1999; Furman, Ho, & Low 2007).

Serious romance defines committed relationships, in which adolescents plan to engage
for a while. Longitudinal studies tracking the number and duration of romantic involvements
identified this as the long-term pattern or steady involvement (Boisvert & Poulin, 2016; Rauer
et al., 2013), and revealed that a proportion of adolescents begin to commit early in such
stable relationships. Regardless of the duration of the relationship, adolescent girls are more
likely than boys to report their romantic relationship as a serious romance (e.g. Courtois,
Potard, Réveillère, & Moltrecht, 2011), a difference that can be interpreted as expressing a
more general gender difference according to which “girls’ relational orientation style is
characterized by stronger interpersonal engagement than that of boys” (Rose & Rudolph,
2006, p. 108). In mid- and late adolescence, this gender difference could also come from the
earlier entry of girls into romantic relationships, following similar pattern in puberty, which is
a strong predictor of romantic and sexual onset (Carter & Williams, 2016). Accordingly, this
precocious onset would lead girls to progress earlier than boys toward the commitment phase
(Brown, 1999).

In contrast, casual dating represents a rapid turnover of romantic partners, or even
multiple and concurrent involvements. It has been identified as the intense/frequent
involvement pattern in longitudinal studies (Boisvert & Poulin, 2016; Rauer et al., 2013).
Some adolescents begin to engage in casual dating early, and a proportion of them continue to
date many partners casually, throughout adolescence and adulthood (Davis & Windle, 2000;
Vasilenko, Kugler & Lanza 2016). As soon as in early adolescence, boys are more likely than
girls to engage in uncommitted sexual relations, or “unrestricted sociosexual orientation”, a
gender difference that is consistent with the aforementioned one in relational orientation style
(Mallet & Kindelberger, 2018). Boys’ reports of more casual dating can also be seen as an
expression of their compliance with sociocultural standards: denying emotional involvement
and valuing physical attraction and sexuality would be a means to assert themselves as “real
men” (Feiring, 1996).
Yet, some adolescents engage in neither casual nor serious romantic relationships, or have few opportunities to do so, as suggested by some patterns of little involvement (Boisvert & Poulin, 2016; Rauer et al., 2013). Thus, adolescents could experience “romance” by some other means such as conversations about sex and romance with friends, or fantasies toward a peer, a friend or a star (Furman & Collins, 2009; Tuval-Mashiach, Walsh, Harel, & Shulman, 2008). Fantasies have been recognized as a widespread mode to experience love and sex affairs in a one-sided attraction (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 1999). They constitute a cognitive-emotional experience *per se* with no expectation of reciprocal interest or an experience associated with dating attempts (Tuval-Mashiach et al., 2008). Fantasies could thus occur in a current friendship or toward a peer possessing characteristics (physical appearance, social status) that do not fit with the adolescent's clique standards (Connolly et al., 1999). Also, some cultural and familial norms (e.g. religion) could prevent adolescents from engaging in steady relationship, leading them to accept merely fantasize. Apart from external pressures, this experience might persist, especially in adolescents afraid of romantic rejection, a common feeling among those who are less prone to engage (Schultz & Jaycox, 2008). This fear could also lead some adolescents to experience romance by using digital social networks (Christopher, Poulsen, & McKenney, 2016), which provides them with knowledge about the status of the potential romantic partner and is a means of showing their interest, without risk, by liking posts and pictures (Van Ouytsel, Van Gool, Walrave, Ponnet, & Peeters, 2016). Afterwards, they could engage in electronic flirting, by sharing personal information attended by emoticons such as smileys or kisses. They thus experience a slight form of romantic intimacy, without official involvement (Christopher et al., 2016; Scott, Poulsen, & McKenney, 2016). Altogether, fantasies, attempts and electronic flirting provide ways for adolescents, especially the more anxious ones, to enter the world of romantic affairs. However, the persistence of these behaviors, nowadays magnified by the central place of
digital social networking in adolescents' lives, could impede the standard timetable of romantic stages toward mature romance (Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 2001).

Therefore, to have a comprehensive view of adolescent romantic experiences, we reasoned that, in addition to casual dating and serious romance, we should take into account their romantic thoughts and attempts with familiar peers in daily life or with virtual peers on social networking websites. For convenience, we propose to use the term “pending romance” to express both fantasies and uncompleted but still possible attempts. Pending romance describes the fact that the romantic process is not sufficiently advanced to perceive the relationship as established, neither serious nor casual. Such attempts could be experienced by both adolescents who have not experienced a casual or serious romance and those who have, as an exploration of a possible new romantic relationship. Very little is known about the place of pending romance among other romantic experiences with serious or casual partners, and how this romantic experience may vary with time according to gender.

**Romantic experiences and identity processes**

As described above, romantic experiences appear as self-clarifying context and hence they can support identity formation, which is a main task of late adolescence (Erikson, 1968). Recent societal changes have led to this period being recognized as challenging, in which the exploration processes (questioning about which lifestyle one wants to pursue) are emphasized compared to commitment (making a choice and engaging in subsequent activities) (Côté, 2002; Waterman & Archer, 1990). To fit these changes, the conceptualization of identity development has been renewed by neo-Eriksonian authors such as Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, and Beyers (2006). The latter proposed a five-dimension identity model, including three forms of exploration (in breadth, in depth, and ruminative) and two forms of commitment (commitment making and identification). This model was devised to capture better the complexity of identity development, in a sequential dual-cycle between exploration
and commitment. In the first cycle, exploration in breadth (exploring different alternatives) leads to commitment making (deciding to adopt goals, values, and beliefs). In the second cycle, commitments are questioned to explore their fairness for the self (exploration in depth); if they are found to be fair, the identification with commitment will rise. For Luyckx et al. (2006, 2013), explorations in breadth and in depth sustain adaptive identity formation, because they provide a continuous re-evaluation of identity commitments, leading to reinforcing them or changing them for more suitable ones. In contrast, ruminative exploration captures a maladaptive form of questioning that does not provide any solutions, braking identity formation (Luyckx et al., 2008).

To explore themselves and their social environment, adolescents tend to rely on intimate peer relationships to gather information (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995). Among others, romantic relationships constitute for adolescents both a means to learn about themselves and social expectations about romance, and an important domain concerning their future lifestyle to explore (Brown, 1999; Zani, 1993). Serious romance would be the main experience to sustain identity development as it entails strong emotional – both negative and positive – and long-lasting involvement (Rauer et al., 2013; Collins & Van Dulmen, 2016). Brown (1999) suggested that serious romance during late adolescence would be a place to explore oneself and the significance of the romantic relationship. At first, this ongoing relationship would enable adolescents to raise many questions: “Can I be committed to this person?”, “Could I accept his/her lifestyle?” (Brown, 1999). This active questioning about romance could spread to an overall process of identity exploration, given that it involves wondering about one’s own values and projection into the future. Simultaneously, serious romance provides an experience of romantic commitment, which could reinforce the general processes of identity commitment. Some previous studies have demonstrated that romantic attachment contributes to both identity styles (i.e. the way adolescents explore possibilities) and commitment, but by
using a cross-sectional design (Kerpelman et al., 2012; Pittman, Kerpelman, Soto, & Adler-Baeder, 2012).

As explained above, casual dating experience is common during adolescence. Some adolescents see casual and multiple dating as a normative developmental phase stemming from the adolescence process (Kindelberger & Tsao, 2014). Some authors agree with this view: they consider that a strong emotional involvement in a unique romantic relationship at an early stage may hinder identity clarification, because early-committed adolescents would not have explored the different facets of their self, revealed by the means of a variety of relationships (Samet & Kelly, 1987). Each romantic relationship allows the adolescents to question about what suits them, and imagine what their future might be like with or without a partner. Such investigation is typical of the process of exploration in depth. Since it might occur over and over again with each new relationship, it is also a form of exploration in breadth (i.e. exploring different alternatives). Thus, casual dating could foster identity development, especially on the exploration side (Furman & Collibee, 2014).

Finally, pending romance could be another means to explore one's own feelings and romantic self. Adolescent crushes have been reported as a way of experimenting with romantic and sexual feelings and discovering about oneself (Brown et al., 1999; Diamond et al., 1999). It thus entails identity processes of exploration. However, this experimentation takes place in a one-sided romantic relationship, with little or no feedback about the romantic self. It lacks the behavioral side of exploration. Adolescents with no actual partner cannot try out romantic behaviors, and are thus prevented from discovering what suits them or not. Hence, pending romance would be less concerned with identity formation. That is only conjecture, because no previous study has explored longitudinally the links between the different kinds of romantic experiences and the range of identity processes in late adolescence.
## Objectives

To resume, the present study aimed to capture the diversity of romantic experiences and their interrelations with identity development in late adolescence, using a short longitudinal design taking place between 16 and 18 years old.

The first aim was to shed light on the diversity of late adolescents' romantic experiences by examining gender differences and developmental changes in serious romance, casual dating, and pending romance. Based on previous studies, we expected that boys and girls would differ in their romantic experiences. As girls are driven rather by intimacy motives and boys rather by the discovery of erotic practices (Courtois et al., 2011; Kindelberger & Tsao, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck, Hughes, Kelly, & Connolly, 2012), girls might report more serious romance, whereas boys might report more casual dating. For pending romance, we hypothesized that boys would score higher than girls, because pending romantic experiences – like casual dating – could be supposed to result from boys' propensity to feel less committed than girls in their relationships (Mallet & Kindelberger, 2018; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Concerning the developmental changes in romantic experiences, we anticipated an increase in serious romance and a slight decrease in both casual dating and pending romance, considering that late adolescence is a transitional period for romantic experiences towards steadier commitment (Brown, 1999; Brown et al., 1999).

The second objective of this study was to investigate the cross-lagged associations between romantic experiences and identity formation throughout one year, testing the moderating role of gender and age. In line with the results of previous studies (Kerpelman et al., 2012; Pittman et al., 2012) and the argumentation of several scholars suggesting that romantic experiences would sustain investigation of oneself and the significance of romantic relationships (Brown, 1999; Furman et al., 2007; Zani, 1993), we expected significant paths from romantic experiences to identity processes rather than the reverse. The hypotheses about
each romantic experience were drawn as follows:

Considering that serious romance highlights the trend to commit to a relationship and following the argumentation of Kerelman et al. (2012), we hypothesized that serious romance would contribute to sustaining identity commitment processes. Since adolescents who are engaged in serious romance have opportunities to wonder about the quality of their relationship and about their self in this relational context, serious romance would also foster the process of exploration in depth.

In accordance with Samet and Kelly (1987)'s suggestion, we expected that casual dating experience would enhance the discovery of multiple facets of the self, because casual daters would encounter diverse partners, who could open the adolescents' eyes to aspects of themselves they tended to ignore. Thus, we expected that casual dating would be predictive of exploration in breadth. Since they have the opportunities to try out romantic behaviors, they can also discover what they consider fair or not in a relationship, which would foster exploration in depth.

Finally, pending romantic experiences, characterized by strong fantasies and weak courtship, could also be a form of exploration of romantic affairs. Adolescents who fantasize and/or flirt on the Internet pay attention to romantic and sexual feelings even though they are more oriented toward their inner feelings (Connolly et al., 1999; Brown et al., 1999). We expected that pending romance would sustain processes of exploration in breadth because adolescents engaged in pending romantic experiences lack an objective relationship to deepen their exploration. Nevertheless, they imagine themselves in various romance related contexts, a social-cognitive activity that is likely to expand their self-concept as future romantic partners.

# Methodology

## Participants
Data came from a longitudinal study about motivational development in several areas and its determinants, including the romantic domain. The whole sample included all students enrolled at the same high school, which was located in the area of Nantes, France (703 distinct participants taking part at least once during the six times of data collection, 57.8% girls). This school provides general, technical, and vocational courses and is also a boarding school, ensuring diversity in the adolescents' geographical recruitment (rural, urban, and suburban). Consequently, adolescents enrolled in this high school are quite representative of different sociocultural backgrounds, which have been found to impact romantic and sexual experiences (Lagrange & Lhomond, 1997). As far as we know, there is until yet no international comparison about adolescents' sexual behaviors and their culture of romance. Nevertheless, relying on ethnological reports, Sabatier and Lannegrand-Willems (2007) suggested that French adolescents are quite similar to adolescents from other Western countries, including US adolescents, in term of love and sexual practices. In the same way, historians consider that since the post-war period most French adolescents have become increasingly part of the North American youth lifestyle, which is omnipresent in their environment (Debray, 2019).

The present subsample was made up of 389 students (245 girls, 63%), who took part in the last three waves, which included the questionnaire about identity formation. At the first wave of the present study, the students were on average 17.28 years old (SD = 0.68, min = 16.08, max = 21.33). Compared to the 520 initial students who took part in the first wave but missed one or two of the subsequent data collections, the retained participants were more likely to be boys, $\chi^2(1) = 5.02, p = .025$. They were also more often involved with a romantic partner at Time 1, $\chi^2(1) = 3.95, p = .046$, and reported less casual dating, $t_W(119.94) = 2.00, p = .047$.

## Procedure
First, the characteristics of the study (aims, materials, scheduling) were approved by a committee of the Educational Institution (composed of principals, school and educational counselors, and school nurses). The parents of underage adolescents were informed about the study design through a written letter and asked to send back the document if they did not want their children to participate. This concerned only one adolescent. At the beginning of each data collection, participants were informed about the purposes of the study and their right not to participate. A few adolescents did not fill out questionnaires (between one and ten per wave). The questionnaires were administered during regular class hours by the researchers and research assistants. Participants were not paid for their participation. Data collection took place twice a year: at the beginning and end of the school year (October and May). For the present study, the first wave took place at the end of the second year of high school (11th grade), the second wave at the beginning of the third year of high school and the third wave at its end, just before the baccalaureate (UK, A levels; US, high school diploma).

## Measures

**Romantic experiences.** Following the results of Furman et al. (2007), we opted for a continuous measure of romantic experiences. To propose formulations known to suit French adolescents, items were taken from Courtois et al.’s (2011) scale, which was devised to assess sexual and romantic experiences. This scale exhibited good psychometric properties (factor structure, internal consistency and external validity for each factor). We chose items from this questionnaire that conceptually fit serious romance (e.g. *When I commit to someone, it's always with the idea that it will last*) and casual dating (e.g. *Since the beginning of the school year, I have had a lot of affairs*), which are the two factors of the Dating History Questionnaire (Furman et al., 2007). These measures have been recurrently used in previous studies and found to be related to psychosocial adjustment and pubertal maturation (Carter & Williams, 2016; Collibee & Furman, 2015).
Items about fantasies, romantic hopes and online flirting were added to identify pending romantic experiences (e.g. *I have or had some friends, who I would like to date*). Adolescents rated each item on a five-point scale (1: not like me at all, 5: entirely like me). Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to check whether a three-factor solution fitted the data adequately at each measurement time. Standard model fit indices were used to estimate the models: $\chi^2/df$ should be near 2, the RMSEA value should be below .06 with its 90% confidence interval, the lower value not worse than .05 and the upper value less than .08, CFI and TLI should exceed .90, and the SRMR value should be below .08 (Kline, 2015). At each wave of data, the three-factor solution was compared to a one-factor solution (all items loaded onto one factor) and a two-factor solution (items about serious romance loaded onto one factor and other items onto another one). The three-factor model fitted the data well (e.g. at Time 1: $\chi^2/df = 2.746$; RMSEA = .062 [.038, .071]; TLI = .934 and CFI = .945; SRMR = .072), fit indices were better than those displayed for one-factor and two-factor models. The three factors had a good internal reliability, across the different waves. Cronbach's alphas ranged from .64 to .70 for the six items of serious romance, from .72 to .80 for the 8 items of casual dating and from .70 to .74 for the 7 items of pending romance.

**Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS).** The DIDS is a 25-item questionnaire first developed by Luyckx et al. (2008) and validated in French by Zimmermann, Lannegrand-Willems, Safont-Mottay, and Cannard (2015) to assess five identity processes (5 items for each dimensions): exploration in breadth (EB, e.g. *I regularly think over a number of different plans for the future*), exploration in depth (ED, e.g. *I regularly talk with other people about the plans for the future I have made for myself*), ruminative exploration (RE, e.g. *It is hard for me to stop thinking about the direction I want to follow in my life*), commitment making (CM, e.g. *I have decided on the direction I want to follow in my life*), and identification with commitment (IC, e.g. *I sense that the direction I want to take in my life will*
*really suit me*). Adolescents filled out the DIDS with a five-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach's alphas ranged from .87 to .91 for CM, from .84 to .86 for IC, from .78 to .79 for EB, from .53 to .57 for ED, and from .81 to .83 for RE. They were comparable to those displayed by Zimmermann et al. (2015) and satisfactory, except for exploration in depth, which was below the reference cutoff of .70. Nevertheless, its inter-item correlation, another item homogeneity index that is not influenced by the length of the scale, varied from .22 to .25 and was thus within the acceptable range, defined by Briggs and Cheek (1986) as between .20 and .50. Consequently, and due to its theoretical significance, we kept the dimension of exploration in depth.

## Results

### Preliminary analyses

Missing data were estimated with the expectation maximization algorithm (EM) and the descriptive statistics for each variable (displayed in Table 4) were performed with SPSS 23.0. Then, to capture the place of pending romantic experiences among the two other well-established experiences of serious romance and casual dating, bivariate correlations between the three romantic experiences were computed. All correlations between the romantic experiences at the three time-points are presented in Table 1. Overall, serious romance was not related to casual dating, nor to pending romance, except for a weak correlation at Time 2 with casual dating and at Time 1 with pending romance. Casual dating and pending romance were consistently linked to each other by positive correlations.

We also computed bivariate correlations between age and romantic experiences. There were few significant correlations between romantic experiences and age: casual dating at Time 1 (*r* = .12, *p* = .02) and Time 3 (*r* = .12, *p* = .02), and pending romance at Time 3 (*r* = .12, *p* = .02). Overall, older adolescents tended to report more experiences.

Finally, bivariate correlations among identity processes were also computed. They are
shown in Table 2.

## Gender differences and changes over the year in romantic experiences

In order to test simultaneously gender differences and developmental changes in romantic experiences, we opted to conduct multi-group growth curve modeling using the lavaan package in R (R Core Team, 2016; Rosseel, 2012). The growth curves were computed separately for girls and boys, displaying intercepts (i.e. means at Time 1) and slopes (i.e. developmental trends) for each gender. The significant moderator effect of gender was computed for intercept and slope via the computation of the delta parameter.

As shown in Table 3, deltas computed on the intercepts underlined significant differences for serious romance and pending romantic experiences. At Time 1, girls scored higher on serious romance than boys while they scored lower on pending experiences. There was no significant difference in casual dating experiences.

Concerning developmental trends, deltas computed on the slopes revealed significant gender differences. Figure 1 illustrates the changes in each romantic experience, taking into account gender differences: Girls' and boys' serious romances increased with time and this developmental trend was similar for both genders, as shown by the non-significant delta. For casual dating and pending romance, only boys displayed a significant increase in both experiences. Significant delta comparing the slope of each gender in casual dating (δ = -.11) reinforced this statement: boys' experiences of casual dating significantly increased while girls' ones remained statistically the same from Time 1 to Time 3. The same comparison index for pending romance (δ = -.06) confirmed that the initial gender difference observed at Time 1 (i.e. intercept) was reinforced with time.

## Gender differences and changes over the year in identity processes

The same analyses were computed for identity processes to observe the expected developmental changes. The results, also displayed in Table 3, showed that there were mainly
significant developmental changes without gender moderation. Commitment making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth increased with age, while ruminative exploration decreased.

## Contributions of romantic experiences to identity processes

Before running cross-lagged analyses to test whether romantic experiences predicted identity processes and *vice-versa*, we explored the links between the three romantic experiences and the five identity processes by computing bivariate correlations (see Table 4). The examination of these correlations suggested slight but recurrent significant links between them. Serious romance appeared positively correlated to commitment making, identification with commitment and exploration in depth at each time. Casual dating and pending romance were positively correlated to ruminative exploration at Time 1 and Time 3. Explorations in breadth and in depth were positively correlated to pending romance at Time 1 and Time 2, and to casual dating only at Time 1.

To investigate reciprocal relationships between romantic experiences and identity processes over time, we conducted path analyses with autoregressive cross-lagged effects. The analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, 2016), using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). To deal with missing data, we supposed that the data were missing completely at random (MAR), thus the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was applicable to estimate the models (Alisson, 2003). To be robust toward non-normality and missing data, Huber-White robust standard errors were used (Huber, 1967). To assess the ability of the different models to reproduce the data, several fit indices were used: RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR. CFI and TLI values above .95, an RMSEA value below .06, and an SRMR value below .08 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the 90% confidence interval for RMSEA, its lower value must be no worse than .05 and its upper value less than .08 (Kline,
2015). Furthermore, nested models were built and compared with the corrected difference chi-square test, used under conditions of non-normality (Satorra & Bentler, 2001).

Each model included within-time associations between variables at T1, T2, and T3 (product moment correlations). First, we built four models for competitive fitting: the first model (M1) was a first-order autoregressive model, meaning that we introduced stability path coefficients in adjacent measurement times (stability paths between T1 and T2, and T2 and T3) and the autoregressive and cross-lagged paths were free to vary. The second model (M2) was also a first-order autoregressive model, but the paths were constrained to be equal across time intervals to make the model more parsimonious. The third model (M3) was a second-order autoregressive model, in which each variable at time T relied on itself at adjacent and non-adjacent times (adding stability paths between T1 and T3) and the autoregressive and cross-lagged paths were free to vary. The fourth model (M4) was a second-order autoregressive model, in which the paths were constrained to be equal over time leading to a parsimonious model. The model fit statistics, presented in Table 5, suggested the fourth model (M4) fitted the data best. This was confirmed by the likelihood-ratio test. The comparison with the second model (M2) showed that the second-order autoregressive model (M4) fitted the data significantly better than the first-order model, $\Delta\chi^2_{SB} (8) = 133.85, p = .001$. The comparison with the third model (M3) indicated that constraints on the paths to be time-invariant significantly improved the model fit, $\Delta\chi^2_{SB} (64) = 167.14, p = .0001$, and thus provided a more parsimonious model.

Finally, we tested the invariance of the paths across gender and age. The fifth model (M5), in which the paths were free to vary across gender, did not fit the data significantly better, $\Delta\chi^2_{SB} (56) = 34.11, p = .99$, than the model in which the paths were constrained to be equal across gender (M4). It showed that the relationships between romantic experiences and identity processes over the three times were the same for boys and girls. Similarly, the sixth
model using three age-categories (M6), in which the paths were free to vary across age
groups, did not fit the data significantly better, Δχ²<sub>SB</sub> (112) = 124.25, *p* = .20. Moreover, the fit
indices in Table 5 confirmed these results. The fourth model (M4) was therefore kept as it
fitted the data best.

As shown in Figure 2, the results of the cross-lagged model analysis partially supported the hypothesis that romantic experiences predict a later level in identity processes, because this was true only for serious romance. As expected, serious romance positively predicted commitment making (β = .14), identification with commitment (β = .14), and exploration in depth (β = .09). The more the adolescents engaged in serious romance, the more they explored in depth, they made commitments, with strong identification with them thereafter. However, we failed to demonstrate that casual dating and pending romance predicted identity processes. An unexpected reverse path was displayed: exploration in breadth positively predicted casual dating. The more the adolescents were engaged in exploration in breadth, the more they tended to date casually six months later.

Regardless of our hypotheses, our analyses revealed significant cross-lagged paths between identity processes: commitment making and identification with commitment reinforced each other (CM => IC, β = .13, IC => CM, β = .15). Commitment making negatively predicted ruminative exploration (CM => RE, β = -.20), while ruminative exploration positively predicted exploration in breadth and in depth (RE => EB, β = .08, RE => ED, β = .11). These results underlined the identity dynamic in late adolescence. Alongside, romantic experiences did not share significant cross-lagged paths between them, showing that each romantic experience was independent of the others during this period of life.

Discussion

The psychological significance of romantic experiences outside any reciprocal
interactions with partners, such as fantasies or concealed desire toward peers, has frequently
been emphasized (Furman & Collins, 2009; Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 2001; Diamond et al., 1999; Tuval-Mashiach et al., 2008). However, this kind of experience has been little studied empirically. The present report is the first to study together adolescents' pending romantic experiences, including both fantasies and uncompleted but still possible attempts, and the more common experiences linked to involvement in a serious or a casual relationship.

Our main results underscored that pending romance constituted a distinct experience among others in late adolescence, even associated with casual dating, and more frequently endorsed by boys than girls. We then examined the reciprocal longitudinal associations between the aforementioned romantic experiences and identity processes with cross-lagged analyses. In accordance with the assumption about the contribution of romantic experiences to identity development (Brown, 1999; Furman et al., 2007; Zani, 1993), our results confirmed unidirectional paths from romantic experiences to identity processes. Only serious romance predicted identity processes. We comment on these results in more detail below.

**Three romantic ways to experience romantic affairs in late adolescence**

As expected, pending romantic experiences appeared as a third way to explore the world of romantic affairs during adolescence. The present results provided a first evidence of the validity of this romantic construct by addressing the substantive and structural phases. However, further research should demonstrate its external validity, since we failed to predict specific outcomes (Flake, Pek, & Hehman, 2017).

We proposed to view pending romance as qualitatively different from the two other forms of romantic experiences, and we expected that they would be reported by a proportion of adolescents who had been or were currently involved in a serious relationship or casual dating<fnref n="1" />. In fact, our results revealed that pending romance was positively and constantly

<footnote n="1">¹ This statement is supported by significant differences in romantic experiences between adolescents who reported to be involved in a current romantic relationship and those who did not: the former scored higher on serious romance and casual dating experiences whereas they scored lower on pending romance than the latter (Kindelberger, 2018).</footnote>
associated with casual dating across waves, and not with serious romance. It is possible that a lot of adolescents who dated casually attempted to have another romantic experience, especially by using networking websites. Digital devices, which constitute a way to experience pending romance, are indeed nowadays easily accessible. Adolescents who are involved either in casual or steady relationship can thus readily use them. The fact that their use, as indexed by pending experiences, was correlated only with casual dating, suggests that it could be a consequence as well as a cause of the lack of serious romance. Both casual dating and pending romance could be seen as revealing an inability to enter into an intimate romantic relationship. In line with this, electronic flirting has already been found to be used by adolescents who fear romantic rejection (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016).

Overall, our data revealed that pending romance is moderately experienced by adolescents with high level of casual dating. Although these two kinds of romantic experiences need to be better disentangled, they shared only 25% of variance. Thus, pending romantic experiences should not be ignored because they characterize entirely a proportion of late adolescents, particularly those without any romantic partner (Kindelberger, 2018).

It would be of interest to learn more about the psychological characteristics associated with these two kinds of romantic experiences. For example, one can wonder whether pending romance is more detrimental to self-efficacy and self-worth development than casual dating, especially during emerging adulthood, because pending romance can be supposed to reveal an inability to attract partners. More generally, further research is needed to examine the specific longitudinal effects of the various romantic experiences, but also to determine whether these effects are additive or interactive. In addition, we did not find any effect of casual and pending romantic experiences on identity development as studied in the neo-Eriksonian framework, but they could have more effect on self-efficacy, self-esteem, and other affective dimensions of identity. Moreover, the specific influences of casual and pending romantic experiences
might occur later, for example, if they are transformed into a serious romance. For instance, adolescents who spend a lot of time experiencing pending romance could idealize romantic relationship, leading them to become strongly dependent on their partner when they finally have one.

Moreover, the results about developmental changes in romantic experiences showed that pending romance – like casual dating – increased across waves, at least for boys. This underscores that the diversity of romantic experiences is still present in late adolescence. However, serious romance consistently increased for both genders, and was more reported than casual dating and pending experiences. Overall, this pattern of results suggests that many late adolescents have reached the final step of “commitment” in Brown’s model (1999). They showed increasing interest in cognitive and affective commitment to their partner, even though they kept in mind other forms of experiences, as possibilities when reconsidering this engagement.

## Gender differences in romantic experiences

The gender differences we found in romantic experiences are in agreement with our expectations. Girls reported more serious romance than boys, and continued to do so over time. For casual dating, although there was no gender difference at Time 1, boys tended to experience more casual dating over time. These different romantic experiences may have roots in romantic motives and interests: girls are mainly more oriented toward love in romance and driven by intimacy motives whereas boys are more interested in dating for sex and motives for erotic practices (Courtois et al., 2011; Kindelberger & Tsao, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2012). Adolescents could also comply with sociocultural standards in their reports in order to comfort their gender identity. Beyond psychological involvement, this trend is also consistent with gender differences in current involvement, according to which girls are more often identified in long-term, frequent, and intense involvement patterns with a
steady partner compared to boys (Boisvert & Poulin, 2016; Davis & Windle, 2000). These different patterns could reflect a developmental gender gap: girls' precocious entry into romantic affairs would have long-lasting effects, leading them to reach earlier than boys the final step of Brown's commitment phase (1999).

Although slight, the difference between boys and girls in pending romantic experiences also conformed to our expectations. Boys reported more pending romance and, contrary to girls, they tended to reinforce this kind of romantic experience over time. Boys described romantic thoughts and tenuous or slight attempts to have a relationship more frequently over time, as they did for casual dating and serious romance. This result highlights that boys, even though they also commit to partners, continue to think about other potential romantic relationships that could evolve into an established one, either serious or casual. In accordance with gender-role expectations, boys are generally expected to be more adventurous in sexual and romantic relationships, which lead them to frequent social network sites, for instance, to form new relationships (Mallet & Kindelberger, 2018; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016).

## Romantic experiences and identity processes

Our results about the co-evolution of romantic processes and identity processes were mixed. On one hand, we confirmed our expectations that serious romance contributes to evolution in identity commitments and exploration in depth. On the other hand, we failed to demonstrate that casual dating and pending romance contribute to the exploration processes.

First, serious romance predicted later identity commitments and also greater exploration in depth, two prominent tasks at the end of adolescence and in emerging adulthood (Luyckx et al., 2013). This result underlines that being involved in a steady way with a romantic partner could promote identity formation toward more clarification, because it provides a place to wonder about oneself and possible futures in the romantic domain,
questions that could spread to other identity domains (Brown, 1999). This result extends
previous cross-sectional findings according to which late adolescents with a positive
attachment to their romantic partner are more prone to exhibit positive identity styles (Berman
et al., 2006; Kerelman et al., 2012; Pittman et al., 2012). Our longitudinal results also
supported the assumption that romantic intimacy, which could be experienced in serious
romance, begins to develop during adolescence, and could participate in genuine intimacy
attainment (Brown, 1999; Zani, 1993). However, the opposite developmental path, suggesting
that identity precedes intimacy, based on Erikson's (1968) seminal theory, has also received
empirical support. Beyers and Seiffge-Krenke (2010) demonstrated the unidirectional path
from early ego development at age 15 to the level of intimacy in romantic relationships at age
25. Beyond differences in construct measurement, our contrasting results could also be
explained by the time measurement gap: these authors used two measurement points
separated by ten years, while we used three, throughout one year. Overall, Beyers and Seiffge-
Krenke's and our results could converge to mean that mature identity in early adolescence is a
keystone to develop deep intimacy in young adulthood, whereas serious romance stimulates
the identity processes, especially commitment processes and deep exploration, which are
particularly important to attain identity synthesis at the end of adolescence.

We found no predictive paths from casual dating and pending romantic experiences to
identity processes, but both were positively associated with exploration processes, especially
pending romantic experiences transversally linked to exploration in breadth and ruminative
exploration. Thus, pending romantic experiences could be the sign of current exploration in
late adolescence. As such, they are part of the normative romantic development during late
adolescence, alongside normative exploration processes. Their contribution to identity, like
that of casual dating, could intervene earlier, taking part in the expansion of identity
exploration in early and middle adolescence (Luyckx et al., 2013). Their lack of effect during
late adolescence suggests that identity formation in this period requires recurrent, strong
emotional and cognitive involvement with a steady partner, as it occurs with other important
relationships such as parents or friends (Arseth, Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2009). Our
results underlined the crucial role of strong involvement to promote identity achievement.
This also matters in the area of romantic relationships.

Finally, our cross-lagged model revealed that one identity process contributed to shaping romantic experiences: exploration in breadth positively and slightly predicted casual dating experiences. Thus, adolescents scoring high in exploration in breadth tended to engage further in more casual dating. As this experience offers them a way to discover various romantic links, we could suggest that they act to experience a general identity request to explore diversity in hypothetical future romantic commitments. Hence, their exploration needs are satisfied in the romantic area. Overall, the pattern of the present results underlines that the identity dynamic is sensitive to romantic experiences, as claimed by different authors (Brown, 1999; Furman & Collibee, 2014; Zani, 1993). Moreover, it matters not only for romantic identity (Kerpelman et al., 2012) but also spreads into global identity.

**Limitations and suggestions for future research**

Despite some strengths, the present study contains several limitations. The main one is
being a short longitudinal study, spanning only one year. The results about changes and cross-
lagged effects would be more robust with more waves. In addition, we have captured some
effects in the specific period of late adolescence. Yet, as discussed above, some changes in
identity processes and romantic experiences occur before, in early and mid-adolescence, and
could also intervene later, during young adulthood. Future studies are thus needed to explore
the whole span of adolescence and the beginning of adulthood, especially in longitudinal
studies tracking different kinds of romantic involvement to verify their effect on the different
identity processes.
Another limitation comes from the use of a Likert scale to rate romantic experiences, because it is more prone to cognitive re-evaluation than rating the frequency of experiences, whose roots are in external behaviors. Thus, the importance of changes and longitudinal effects could have been altered. Also, the results about exploration in depth could have been blurred, because of its weak internal consistency reliability.

Our results highlight that further research should improve the theoretical analysis of and empirical inquiry into pending romantic experiences, which have been entirely ignored due to an exclusive focus on casual dating and serious romantic relationships. It would be of interest to study this new category of experiences, which are mainly unsuccessful attempts, in early adolescence, because one can suppose they are especially typical of this period. Furthermore, this kind of experience is likely to impact adolescents' sense of social competence, and hence their self-worth and depressive feelings.

Our results call for future studies about the specific contribution of romantic experiences to identity formation among other forms of relational experiences, such as parents and friends, which already have interdependent contributions (De Goede et al., 2012). As suggested by Beyers and Seiffge-Krenke (2010), identity is known to develop in a web of intimate relationships, not only in romance. Accordingly, serious romance experience could first depend on anterior attachment to parents or best friends (e.g. Kochendorfer & Kerns, 2017). Second, the number of intimate relationships and the ability to integrate these different experiences of intimacy could enhance identity formation. This could also be a promising direction for future studies.

## Conclusion

Our findings extend the literature on romantic experiences, by addressing the place of pending romantic experiences in addition to typical casual and serious relationships. At the end of adolescence, serious romance increases for both genders, suggesting a move toward
more romantic commitment (Brown, 1999). Only boys continue to experience a positive
increase in pending romance and casual dating, underlying a gender gap in romantic
experiences. As far as we know, this study is the first one to support empirically the
assumption that romantic experiences foster identity formation, by means of a cross-lagged
model. Moreover, the strength of our results relies on the use of a recent model of identity
processes, containing both adaptive and maladaptive exploration (Luyckx et al., 2008, 2013).

They indicate promising research directions by crossing the renewal field of identity
processes with that of romance, which should include a broader range of romantic experiences
rather than focusing solely on romantic intimacy or commitment.
References

Alisson, P.D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. *Journal of Abnormal Psychology*, 112(4), 545-557.

Arseth, A.K., Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J.E. (2009). Meta-analytic studies of identity status and the relational issues of attachment and intimacy. *Identity*, 9(1), 1-2.

Berman, S.L., Weems, C.F., Rodriguez, E.T., & Zamora, I.J. (2006). The relation between identity status and romantic attachment style in middle and late adolescence. *Journal of Adolescence*, 29(5), 737-748.

Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson's theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century. *Journal of Adolescent Research*, 25(3), 387-415.

Boisvert, S., & Poulin, F. (2016). Romantic relationship patterns from adolescence to emerging adulthood: associations with family and peer experiences in early adolescence. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence*, 45(5), 945-958.

Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. *Journal of Personality*, 54(1), 106-148.

Brown, B.B. (1999). 'You're going out with who?': Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In: W. Furman, B.B. Brown & C. Feiring (Eds.), *The development of romantic relationships in adolescence* (pp. 291-329). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, B.B., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the love boat: Why researchers have shied away from adolescent romance. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), *The development of romantic relationships in adolescence* (pp. 1-16). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Buhrmester, D., & Prager, K. (1995). Patterns of functions of self-disclosure during childhood and adolescence. In K.J. Rotenberg (Ed.). *Disclosure processes in children and adolescents* (pp. 10-56). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, R., & Williams, S. (2016). Self-perceptions of pubertal timing and patterns of peer group activities and dating behavior among heterosexual adolescent girls. *Journal of Adolescence*, 47, 71-80.

Christopher, F.S., Poulsen, F.O., & McKenney, S.J. (2016). Early adolescents and 'going out': The emergence of romantic relationship roles. *Journal of Social and Personal Relationships*, 33(6), 814-834.
Collibee, C., & Furman, W. (2015). Quality counts: Developmental shifts in associations between romantic relationship qualities and psychosocial adjustment. *Child Development, 86*(5), 1639-1652.

Collins, W.A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. *Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13*(1), 1-25.

Collins, W.A. & van Dulmen, M. (2016). The course of true love(s): origins and pathways in the development of romantic relationships. In: A. Booth, A.C. Crouter & A. Snyder (Eds.), *Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: risks and opportunities* (pp. 63-82). New York, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Connolly, J.A., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (1999). Conceptions of cross-sex friendships and romantic relationships in early adolescence. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28*, 481-494.

Côté, J.E. (2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization thesis examined. *Journal of Youth Studies, 5*(2), 117-134.

Courtois, R., Potard, C., Réveillère, C., & Moltrecht, B. (2011). Validation d'une échelle de sexualité (intérêts, émotions, relations: IERS) à la prime adolescence (12-15 ans) [Validation of a scale of sexuality (interests, emotions, relationships: IERS) in prime adolescence (12 to 15 years)]. *L'Encéphale, 37*(1), 33-40.

Davies, P.T., & Windle, M. (2000). Middle adolescents' dating pathways and psychosocial adjustment. *Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46*(1), 90-118.

De Goede, I.H.A., Branje, S., van Duin, J., VanderValk, I.E., & Meeus, W. (2012). Romantic relationship commitment and its linkages with commitment to parents and friends during adolescence. *Social Development, 21*(3), 425-442.

Debray, R. (2019). *L'Europe fantôme [Europe as a ghost]*. Paris, France: Gallimard.

Diamond, L.M., Savin-Williams, R., & Dubé, E.M. (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In: W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), *The development of romantic relationships in adolescence* (pp. 175-210). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). *Identity: Youth and crisis*. New York, USA: Norton.

Flake, J.K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. *Social Psychological and Personality Science. 8*(4), 370-378.

Feiring, C. (1996). Concept of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. *Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6*, 181-200.
Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2014). A matter of timing: Developmental theories of romantic involvement and psychosocial adjustment. *Development and Psychopathology, 26*(4), 1149-1160.

Furman, W., & Collins, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships and experiences. In: K.H. Rubin, W.M. Bukowski & B. Laursen (Eds.), *Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups* (pp. 341-360). New York, USA: Guilford Press.

Furman, W., Ho, M.J. & Low, S.M. (2007). The rocky road of adolescent romantic experience: Dating and adjustment. In: R.C.M.E. Engels, M. Kerr & H. Stattin. (Eds.). *Friends, lovers and groups: Key relationships in adolescence* (pp. 61-80). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. *Structural Equation Modeling, 6*(1), 1-55.

Huber, P.J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In L.M. Le Cam & J. Neyman (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics* (pp. 221-233). Berkeley, USA: University of California Press.

Kerpelman, J., Pittman, J.F., Saint-Eloi Cadely, H., Tuggle, F.J., Harrell-Levy, M.K., & Adler-Baeder, F.M. (2012). Identity and intimacy during adolescence: Connections among identity styles, romantic attachment and identity commitment. *Journal of Adolescence, 35*(6), 1427-1439.

Kindelberger, C. & Tsao, R. (2014) Staying Alone or Getting Attached: Assessing Motivations toward Romantic Relationships in Adolescence. *Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175*(1-2), 147-162.

Kindelberger (2018). *Différences intra et interindividuelles dans les experiences amoureuses de la grande adolescence. [Intra and inter individual differences in romantic experiences during late adolescence]*. Unpublished manuscript. Nantes, France: Université de Nantes.

Kline, R.B. (2015). *Principles and practice of structural equation modeling*. 4th edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kochendorfer, L.B., & Kerns, K.A. (2017). Perceptions of Parent-Child Attachment Relationships and Friendship Qualities: Predictors of Romantic Relationship Involvement and Quality in Adolescence. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46*(5), 1009-1021.

Lagrange H., & Lhomond B. (1997). *L'entrée dans la sexualité. Le comportement des jeunes dans le contexte du sida*. [Entry into sexuality: Youth' behaviors in the AIDS context]. Paris, France: La Découverte.
Larson, R.W., Clore, G.L., & Wood, G.A. (1999). The emotions of romantic relationships: Do they wreak havoc on adolescents? In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), *The development of romantic relationships in adolescence* (pp. 19-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: Preliminary validation of an integrative model of late adolescent identity formation. *Journal of Adolescence, 29*(3), 361-378.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S.J., Berzonsky, M.D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. *Journal of Research in Personality, 42*(1), 58-82.

Luyckx, K., Klimstra, T.A., Duriez, B., Van Petegem, S. & Beyers, W. (2013). Personal identity processes from adolescence through the late 20s: Age trends, functionality, and depressive symptoms. *Social Development, 22*(4), 701-721.

Mallet, P. & Kindelberger, C. (2018). Adolescents' sociosexual orientation is related to attachment to their same-sex parent. *Personality and Individual Differences, 126*(1), 7-11.

Pittman, J.F., Kerpelman, J.L., Soto, J.B., & Adler-Baeder, F.M. (2012). Identity exploration in the dating domain: The role of attachment dimensions and parenting practices. *Journal of Adolescence, 35*(6), 1485-1499.

R Core Team (2016). *R: A language and environment for statistical computing*. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Rauer, A.J., Pettit, G.S., Lansford, J.E., Bates, J.E., & Dodge, K.A. (2013). Romantic relationship patterns in young adulthood and their developmental antecedents. *Developmental Psychology, 49*(11), 2159-2171.

Rose, A.J., & Rudolph, K.D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. *Psychology Bulletin, 132*, 98-131.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. *Journal of Statistical Software, 48*(2), 1-36.

Sabatier, C. & Lannegrand-Willems, L. (2007). France. In J.J. Arnett (Ed), *International encyclopedia of adolescence* (pp. 302-320). New York, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Samet, N., & Kelly, E.W. (1987). The relationships of steady dating to self-esteem and sex role identity among adolescents. *Adolescence, 22*(85), 231-245.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. *Psychometrika*, **66**(4), 507-514.

Schultz, D.J., & Jaycox, L.H. (2008). Fear in adolescent dating relationships. *Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma*, **17**(2), 245-261.

Scott, C.F., Poulsen, F.O., & McKenney, S.J. (2016). Early adolescents and 'going out': The emergence of romantic relationship roles. *Journal of Social and Personal Relationships*, **33**(6), 814-834.

Shulman, S., & Seiffge-Krenke, I., (2001). Adolescent romance: between experience and relationships. *Journal of Adolescence*, **24**(3), 417-428.

Tuval-Mashiach, R. Walsh, S., Harel, S., & Shulman, S. (2008). Romantic Fantasies, Cross-Gender Friendships, and Romantic Experiences in Adolescence. *Journal of Adolescent Research*, **23**(4), 471-487.

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. *Computers in Human Behavior*, **55**, 76-86.

Vasilenko, S.A., Kugler, K.C., & Lanza, S.T. (2016). Latent classes of adolescent sexual and romantic relationship experiences: Implications for adult sexual health and relationship outcomes. *Journal of Sex Research*, **53**(7), 742-753.

Waterman, A.S., & Archer, S.L. (1990). A life-span perspective on identity formation: Development in form, function, and process. In: P.B. Baltes, D.L. Featherman, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), *Life-span development and behavior* (Vol. 10, pp. 30-57). Hillsdale, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zani, B. (1993). Dating and interpersonal relationships in adolescence. In: S. Jackson & H. Rodriguez-Tomé (Eds.), *Adolescence and its social worlds* (pp. 95-119). Hillsdale, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Hughes, N., Kelly, M., & Connolly, J. (2012). Intimacy, identity and status: Measuring dating goals in late adolescence and emerging adulthood. *Motivation and Emotion*, **36**(3), 311-322.

Zimmermann, G., Lannegrand-Willems, L., Safont-Mottay, C., & Cannard, Ch. (2015). Testing new identity models and processes in French-speaking adolescents and emerging adults' students. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence*, **44**(1), 127-141.
<caption>**Table 1.**</caption>

Within-time Correlations between Romantic Experiences

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Casual<br>Dating</th><th>Pending<br>Romance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Serious Romance T1</td><td>.03</td><td>.11*</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>-.13*</td><td>-.01</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>-.08</td><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td>Casual Dating T1</td><td></td><td>.50**</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td></td><td>.51**</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td></td><td>.52**</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. *p* < .05; **p* < .0001
<caption>**Table 2.**</caption>

Within-time Correlations between Identity Processes

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>ED</th><th>RE</th><th>CM</th><th>IC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EB – Exploration in Breadth T1</td><td>.36***</td><td>.26***</td><td>.23***</td><td>.28***</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>.35***</td><td>.26***</td><td>.17***</td><td>.18***</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>.28***</td><td>.15**</td><td>.25***</td><td>.26***</td></tr><tr><td>ED – Exploration in Depth T1</td><td></td><td>.28***</td><td>.19***</td><td>.16**</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>-</td><td>.19***</td><td>.19***</td><td>.16**</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td></td><td>.22***</td><td>.18***</td><td>.16**</td></tr><tr><td>RE – Ruminative Exploration T1</td><td></td><td></td><td>-.47***</td><td>-.37***</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td></td><td>-</td><td>-.57***</td><td>-.43***</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td></td><td></td><td>-.53***</td><td>-.44***</td></tr><tr><td>CM – Commitment Making T1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.68***</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td></td><td></td><td>-</td><td>.71***</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.69***</td></tr><tr><td>IC – Identification to Commitment T1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. **p < .001, ***p < .0001
<caption>Table 3.</caption>

Latent Growth Curve Analyses for Romantic Experiences and Identity Processes

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="2">Intercept: M (σ²)</th><th rowspan="2">Delta</th><th colspan="2">Slope: M (σ²)</th><th rowspan="2">Delta</th></tr><tr><th>Girls</th><th>Boys</th><th>Girls</th><th>Boys</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Serious</td><td>3.21 (.23)***</td><td>2.85 (.30)***</td><td>.36**</td><td>.14 (.01)***</td><td>.15 (.02)***</td><td>-.01</td></tr><tr><td>Casual</td><td>2.14 (.20)***</td><td>2.22 (.41)***</td><td>-.10</td><td>.02 (-.01)</td><td>.16 (.04)***</td><td>-.11***</td></tr><tr><td>Pending</td><td>2.07 (.34)***</td><td>2.28 (.36)***</td><td>-.22**</td><td>-.02 (.04)</td><td>.05 (.06)*</td><td>-.06*</td></tr><tr><td>CM</td><td>3.39 (1.14)***</td><td>3.33 (1.15)***</td><td>.07</td><td>.29 (.19)***</td><td>.20 (.18)***</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>3.35 (.69)***</td><td>3.43 (.71)***</td><td>-.09</td><td>.18 (.10)***</td><td>.12 (.07)**</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>EB</td><td>3.61 (.28)***</td><td>3.54 (.36)***</td><td>.07</td><td>.09 (.04)**</td><td>.10 (-.05)*</td><td>-.01</td></tr><tr><td>ED</td><td>3.34 (.31)***</td><td>2.91 (.22)***</td><td>.42*</td><td>.05 (-.01)</td><td>.10 (.02)**</td><td>-.07</td></tr><tr><td>RE</td><td>3.07 (.79)***</td><td>2.88 (.58)***</td><td>.21*</td><td>-.19 (.11)***</td><td>-.10 (.07)*</td><td>.10</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. CM = Commitment Making, IC = Identification with Commitment, EB = Exploration in Breadth, ED = Exploration in Depth & RE = Ruminative Exploration.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
<caption>**Table 4.**</caption>

Correlations between Romantic Experiences and Identity Processes, Means and Standard Deviations of each dimension for the three waves

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Serious Romance</th><th colspan="3">Casual Dating</th><th colspan="3">Pending Romance</th><th colspan="3">M (σ)</th></tr><tr><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CM</td><td>.14*</td><td>.12*</td><td>.21**</td><td>-.01</td><td>.04</td><td>-.04</td><td>.04</td><td>.08</td><td>-.01</td><td>3.38<br>(1.18)</td><td>3.69<br>(1.06)</td><td>3.90<br>(1.91)</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>.12*</td><td>.15*</td><td>.20**</td><td>.05</td><td>.01</td><td>-.03</td><td>.04</td><td>.08</td><td>-.01</td><td>3.42<br>(.96)</td><td>3.52<br>(.92)</td><td>3.71<br>(.92)</td></tr><tr><td>EB</td><td>.13*</td><td>.03</td><td>.04</td><td>.09</td><td>.16*</td><td>-.01</td><td>.11*</td><td>.17**</td><td>.08</td><td>3.55<br>(.88)</td><td>3.74<br>(.84)</td><td>3.77<br>(.81)</td></tr><tr><td>ED</td><td>.20**</td><td>.14*</td><td>.20**</td><td>.04</td><td>.11*</td><td>-.02</td><td>.14*</td><td>.18**</td><td>.07</td><td>3.17<br>(.82)</td><td>3.30<br>(.79)</td><td>3.27<br>(.79)</td></tr><tr><td>RE</td><td>.08</td><td>-.07</td><td>-.10*</td><td>.12*</td><td>.04</td><td>.13*</td><td>.10*</td><td>.04</td><td>.15*</td><td>2.93<br>(1.04)</td><td>2.92<br>(1.08)</td><td>2.58<br>(1.04)</td></tr><tr><td>M (σ)</td><td>3.04<br>(.66)</td><td>3.36 (.73)</td><td>3.35<br>(.80)</td><td>2.20<br>(.66)</td><td>2.38<br>(.65)</td><td>2.27<br>(.72)</td><td>2.16<br>(.66)</td><td>2.38<br>(.65)</td><td>2.16<br>(.63)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. CM = Commitment Making, IC = Identification with Commitment, EB = Exploration in Breadth, ED = Exploration in Depth & RE = Ruminative Exploration.

* p < .05; ** p < .001
<table><caption>**Table 5.**</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>df</th><th>CFI</th><th>TLI</th><th>RMSEA [90% CI]</th><th>SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>M1</td><td>271.88</td><td>64</td><td>0.955</td><td>0.806</td><td>.093 [.082 .104]</td><td>.035</td></tr><tr><td>M2</td><td>396.89</td><td>128</td><td>0.943</td><td>0.878</td><td>.068 [.060 .076]</td><td>.050</td></tr><tr><td>M3</td><td>251.51</td><td>62</td><td>0.959</td><td>0.817</td><td>.090 [.079.102]</td><td>.031</td></tr><tr><td>M4</td><td>263.04</td><td>120</td><td>0.971</td><td>0.932</td><td>.051 [.042 .060]</td><td>.046</td></tr><tr><td>M5</td><td>297.15</td><td>176</td><td>0.974</td><td>0.918</td><td>.061 [.048 .072]</td><td>.041</td></tr><tr><td>M6</td><td>387.30</td><td>232</td><td>0.967</td><td>0.884</td><td>.073 [.060 .086]</td><td>.041</td></tr></tbody></table>

Fit indices of the different models.

*Note.* Each model included covariance between variables at identical times.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Changes in Romantic Experiences for each Gender</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Cross-lagged model of Romantic Experiences and Identity Processes</figcaption></figure>

*Note.* RE = Ruminative Exploration, ED = Exploration in Depth, EB = Exploration in Breadth, CM = Commitment Making, & IC = Identification with Commitment.

For the sake of clarity, the one-year stability paths and the cross-lagged paths among the identity processes are not reported.
*Conflicts of Interest Statement*

The authors report no conflicts of interest

*Data Availability Statement*

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

*Author Note.*

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the students, teachers and school administrators who made this study possible. The study was supported by the University of Nantes.