greek adolescents' intimate relations before their transition to adulthood

Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Greek adolescents' intimate relations before their transitionto adulthood

Dimitris Pnevmatikos a, *, Achilles N. Bardos b

a University of Western Macedonia, Greeceb University of Northern Colorado, USA

Keywords:AdolescenceEmerging AdulthoodIntimacyParentsPeers

* Corresponding author. University of Western Maþ30 2385055035; fax: þ30 2385055003.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], dpnevm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.0180140-1971/© 2014 The Foundation for Professionals

Please cite this article in press as: Pnevmatiadulthood, Journal of Adolescence (2014), h

a b s t r a c t

The study examined whether the characteristics of the other partner in a dyad could revealsome unique intimate relationships regardless of the commonalties in the intimate re-lationships adolescents and emerging adults endorse with four important partners(mother, father, female and male peers). Six hundred and thirteen (56.8% female) Greekadolescents and emerging adults participated in the study. Participants endorsed theiragreement to nine items addressing issues of intimacy and companionship. The intimaterelationships with the four important partners share some common characteristicsreflecting the person who endorses the intimate relationships and are also reciprocal,depending on who is the other partner in the dyad. The intimacy participants endorsedwith their parents contributed to the intimate relationship with their peers of the same sexwith the parent. The way Greek youth is gendered could explain the characteristics of theintimate relationships they endorse with the other partners in the dyads.© 2014 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The capacity to form intimate relationships is among the most salient psychosocial processes (Roisman, Masten,Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004) of the adolescent and emerging adult years, defined as age 18e25 (Arnett, 2000). Duringthis period we observe the development of intense friendships or romantic relationships with peers of the same or oppositesex, including increased sexual interests (Collins & Sroufe, 1999; Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002). Most of the developmentalresearch has been focused on companionship and intimate relations with parents and peers until adolescence (e.g.Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009; Seiffge-Krenke, 2000; Sharabany, 1994) and indicates that thebetter the relationship that adolescents have with their parents, the better their relationship with their peers will be.

This developmental research has at least three characteristics. First, companionship and intimate relationships areconsidered a stable characteristic of the adolescent, mainly constructed in early years of development through the attachmentto parents, and they influence all future relationships. Intimate relationships are a result of an interaction between two in-dividuals in a specific context. Intimate relationships with peers are sensitive to the attachment type (e.g. Weimer, Kerns, &Oldenburg, 2004), the gender of the other in the dyad (Dindia & Allen, 1992), and have strong cultural influences (Greenfield,

cedonia, School of Education, 3rd Km of National Road Florina e Niki, GR-53100, Florina, Greece. Tel.:

[email protected] (D. Pnevmatikos).

in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

kos, D.,& Bardos, A. N., Greek adolescents' intimate relations before their transition tottp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.018

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01401971

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.018



D. Pnevmatikos, A.N. Bardos / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e142

Keller, Fuglini,&Maynard, 2003). Thus, while studying intimate relationships, it is appropriate to specify who the other in thedyad is. Second, the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a period of significant nonlinear transformation infamily relationships (Tsai, Telzer, & Fuligni, 2013). A linear decline in intimacy with the parents is set off with an increasedintimacy with peers, but the relationships with the mother and the father do not follow similar developmental trajectories,and possibly impact with unknown dynamics on their intimate relationships with peers. Culture is the third characteristicthat influences intimate relationships, with dependency on family and kinship reported to be stronger in the Southern than inthe Northern European countries (Billari, Rosina, Ranaldi, & Romano, 2008; Fuligni & Masten, 2010; Lanz & Tagliabue, 2007;Mendonca & Fonaine, 2013; Moreno, 2012). Among the Southern countries, Greece is considered to be a typical example ofkinship forms and practices (Papataxiarchis, 2012) where relationships with emotional mothers are far more intimate thanrelationships with distant and unreachable fathers (Paxson, 2004).

In this study we investigated the dynamics in relationships of companionship/intimacy with four dyads (i.e. mother, fa-ther, female and male peers) during adolescence and emerging adulthood in the Greek context.

The development of the intimate relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood

While some aspects of intimacy such as the need for companionship emerge as early as toddlerhood (Sullivan, 1953) anddevelop further in pre-adolescence, adult-like forms of intimacy (e.g. disclosing one's inner most feelings) do not appearbefore children approach adolescence (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). Parents are the first who fulfill children's need forcompanionship and intimacy, with adolescents reporting closer relationships (Tsai et al., 2013) and more reciprocity (Collins& Russell, 1991) with their mothers than with their fathers.

Despite the relative stability of the quality of parentechild relationships during adolescence (Shanahan, McHale, Crouter,& Osgood, 2007), as adolescents become independent of their families, individuation from family leads to a decline in parent-child cohesion and relationships (e.g. Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn, 1991; Steinberg, 1988). The warmth adolescents feel for theirparents is significantly diminished (Helsen, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 2000; McGue, Elkins, Walden, & Iacono, 2005) and by theend of their secondary education, romantic partners are their most important intimate partners, followed by their bestfriends, mothers and finally fathers (Buhrmester, 1996).

Companionship and intimacy are among the most important functions of friendships in early adolescence. Adolescentsspend more time with their peers than with their family members, thus peers gradually become the agents to whom ado-lescents turn for companionship and enjoyment (Shulman & Kipnis, 2001). Although adolescents spend less time withparents and more with peers, intimacy is not replaced; parents still fulfill the adolescents' and young adults' need forproximity, companionship and intimacy (Freeman& Brown, 2001). Further, the relationship experiences adolescents endorsewith their parents have an impact on their peers' interactions (Black, 2002; Glick, Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2013).

The transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood is a critical period in which important transformations in youth'sperceptions of their family relationships occur. Emerging adulthood provides greater opportunities to exercise independence,and the pursuit of individualistic goals becomes central (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults spend more time with friends andromantic partners than with their family (Fuligni & Masten, 2010). Balancing individual autonomy and connectedness withfamilies is a task that must be learned by both adolescents and emerging adults. Recent evidence suggests that, throughoutadolescence and young adulthood, across different dimensions of family relationship trajectories, discontinuity is morecommon than continuity. In the eight-year longitudinal study, emerging adults were focused on maintaining andstrengthening their family relationships (values linked to respect and future support), and thus, compared with theadolescence years, some aspects of their family relationships did not necessarily worsen (Tsai et al., 2013). For instance,feelings of emotional closeness in dyadic relationships with mothers did not significantly change between the adolescenceand young adulthood. However, the decline in feelings of closeness with the father and in perceived father cohesion notedduring adolescence persisted into young adulthood. Therefore, the transition from adolescence to young adulthood appearsto be a critical period in which the dynamics of relationships within the family change, and this change could disturb thedynamics of the relationships of individuals with their family members and peers.

The dynamics of the intimate relationships with parents and peers

On the basis of Bowlby's (1973) attachment theory, scholars hypothesized that the type of emotional connection infantsand toddlers make with primary attachment figures, such as parents, is used as an internal working model of self and as asecure base to explore peer relationships in adolescent or early adult romantic relationships. However, the correlation be-tween attachment to parents and to peers found among adolescents and young adults was low tomedium (e.g. Bartholomew& Horowitz, 1991), depending on the aspect that had been measured. It was suggested that this finding leaves space forconsidering their relationships with others as unique (Nickerson & Nagle, 2005). Weimer et al. (2004) suggested that it is notthe type of attachment that adolescents form in infancy per se that affects their intimate relations with peers, but thecombination of the attachment type and the dyads involved in the interaction; dyads with two secure members promotedbetter relationships than dyads with one insecure partner. Furthermore, in cross-sex relationships, males are moreemotionally expressive (Monsour, 1992) andmore intimate (Dindia& Allen, 1992). The idea that the relational self might varyas a function with significant others is in accordance to the interpersonal social-cognitive theory which assumes that eachlinkage with the significant others captures relatively unique aspects of the self (Andersen & Chen, 2002).

Please cite this article in press as: Pnevmatikos, D.,& Bardos, A. N., Greek adolescents' intimate relations before their transition toadulthood, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.018

D. Pnevmatikos, A.N. Bardos / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e14 3

Alternatively, social learning theories suggest that adolescents' intimate relationships with parents could be replicated inthe relationships with peers. For example, a father's expression of hostility toward his child predicts the child's level ofhostility in its young adult friendship nine years later (Allen, Hauser, O'Connor, & Bell, 2002), and it is more likely for a maleadolescent to mimic the father's behavior. When balancing control with a friend, boys mimic the father's balance of controlwith his spouse (Updegraff et al., 2004). On the other hand, adolescents were more likely to use their own models in bothmother and best friend interaction than to model and replicate their mother's behavior (Black, 2002).

In sum, despite the connections between the relationships of intimacy and companionship that adolescents and emergingadults establish with their parents and their peers, it is not clear whether they adopt a certain unique model of relationshipswith each one or whether specific relationships with each parent are replicated in their relationships with their peers.Moreover, since relationships with mothers and fathers follow a nonlinear transformation from adolescence to emergingadulthood, there is a need to examine the intimate relationships perceived with each parent and the peers concurrently.

Intimate relations in context: the role of gender

Although gender was not initially considered an important aspect of the study of intimate relationships (Erikson, 1968)and sex differences were not found in attachment research (Ainsworth, 1989), later research demonstrated that females andmales experience different intimate relationships. Gender contributed differently to the quality of parentechild relationships.Females remain more connected to both parents even during adulthood (Lye, 1996), valuing intimacy more (Montgomery,2005), reporting more time, closeness and commitment with friends (Johnson, 2004) and engaging in intimate in-teractions earlier than males (Zimmer-Gembeck & Petherick, 2006). Further, females are more likely to endorse intimacyduring the early adolescence (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), endorse more intimate relationships with friends of the opposite sex(Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hoffman, 1981) while also reporting a higher level of intimacy in their romantic relationships(Shulman, Walsh, Weisman, & Schleyer, 2009). During emerging adulthood females continue to perceive greater intimacy(Craig-Bray, Adams, & Dobson, 1988). These gender differences have been interpreted as resulting from the different so-cialization process parents follow for their children (Chodorow, 1978). Female identity is formed through identification withrelationally oriented mothers while male identity is formed through identificationwith more distant and unavailable fathers(see Sneed et al., 2006). However, some scholars report no gender differences either at the knowledge or at the behaviorallevel of intimate relationships (Perrin et al., 2011). Both females and males were found to have similar understanding of whatmaintaining and fostering a relationship means (Burleson, 2003) and to be aware of how partners should behave in a rela-tionship to communicate their love (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003).

Despite the disagreements in the literature about whether gender identity formation and the achievement of the capacityfor true intimacy appear simultaneously, being mutually influential (Allison & Sabatelli, 1988; Dyk & Adams, 1990), orwhether one is necessary for or precedes the other (e.g. Beyers& Seiffge-Krenke, 2010; Brown,1999; Erikson,1968), gender inthese studies was perceived as a fixed characteristic which the individual carries into every situation. However, this approachleaves out the crucial parameter of balancing the quality of the relationship, which is the “other person in the dyad” (Weimeret al., 2004). The majority of the previous research on intimate relationships treated gender as an independent variable,disregarding the possibility that more complex intimate relationships could be developed within dyadic relationships.

Intimate relations in context: the role of the culture

The above mentioned same- or opposite-sex intimate relationships are probably not universal, either across cultures orwithinWestern culture over time (Prager, 1995). For example, it is stressed that the prominent values or “cultural syndromes”of individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 1991) and the cultural construction of the self as independent or interdependent(Markus & Kitayama, 1991), based on the ideal self in each specific society, might serve as developmental goals affecting howmembers of the specific society form their relationships with their parents and important others. Eastern societies attachmore value to interdependence, emotions and behavior within the family and society (i.e. decency, proper conduct withfamily members or elders, and intergenerational solidarity) as important aspects of socialization. In contrast, Westerncommunities, such as Europeans and European Americans, set independence as the ideal self, and stress self-maximization(i.e. self-esteem, assertiveness, curiosity, creativity). Thus, freely chosen relationships (i.e. with peers), are more valued insocieties seeking the independent construction of the self, while implicit obligations in relationships, such as relationshipsamong family members, are valued more in the interdependent framework (Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003).

Nevertheless, within Southern European societies, neither young people nor their parents place a high value on autonomyand independence from family (Lanz & Tagliabue, 2007; Mendonca & Fonaine, 2013; Moreno, 2012; Saraiva & Matos, 2012).However, the separation and individuation from the family does not necessarily imply a lower perceived emotional supportfrom parents (Lanz & Tagliabue, 2007; Mendonca & Fonaine, 2013). This trend has been interpreted in light of what Banfield(1958) called as ‘amoral familism’ to describe the Southern European intergenerational solidarity in away that gives priority to‘family interests at the expense of the collective interests in the face of a precarious economic environment’ (Moreno, 2012, p.22). Anthropologists assert that among Southern European communities, ‘Greece is occupying the extreme end of a spectrumof kinship forms and practices’ (Papataxiarchis, 2012, p. 239).

Paxson (2004) refers to the Greek familism as ‘the notion that family relations are prominent social relations, that thefamily should be a cohesive unit, that the family's loyalty supersedes all others’ (p. 144). Comparing a number of everyday



aspects of life among Greeks and Americans, in their technical report, Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) noted that the Greek valuesystem has prominent collectivistic characteristics, especially in family relationships. The Greek family emphasizes theimportance of supportive relationships among family members and friends and endorse high intimate relationships withinthe family.

The Greekmother is considered to be the basic prop of the family in all forms of care toward all family members, especiallychildren and the elderly (Papataxiarchis, 2012). Women in Greece complete their self through ‘relational motherhood’(Paxson, 2004, p. 241). Thus, it is not surprising that, unlike Americans, Greeks consider the intimacy between a mother andher children to bemore proper than the intimacy between husband and wife (Triandis& Vassiliou, 1967). Although the Greekfamily seems to be patriarchic in many respects (see Papataxiarchis, 2012), the Greek mother, through regulation of thequality of the relationships with her children and their care, has another type of power: the power to change their behaviorintentionally. In current family studies, this power is considered as crucial in the relationships within marriage (Morgan,1996).

The Greek familism also reinforces a pattern of dependencies among family members. Due to familism in Greece, the familyoperates as the primary provider of welfare support, and this is reinforced by the absence of a family policy (Papadopoulos,1998). Serving family as awelfare provider, young people becomemore dependent on their family and thus their dependencyon the family is maintained. Marriage was considered as the vehicle for young adults, especially females, to escape from thefamily environment and live independently. Family usually rewards a young couple's decision to marry by helping them tostart their new life in a new house. Tertiary studies facilitate young people's independence from the family to some extent.However, both familism and lack of policy on students' financial assistance prevent emerging adults from gaining their in-dependence from the family. As in other Southern European countries, Greek young people follow the ‘living apart andtogether’ model (Billari et al., 2008). Thus, Greek emerging adults lack a crucial element that promotes self-reliance andemotional autonomy: leaving the parental home (Kins & Beyers, 2010).

Post-modern fluidity and uncertainty seems to have created many changes for the contemporary Greek family, even if thisis happening slowly. These changes have not been studied systematically, but everyday discourses inwhich Greeks lament theloss of the traditional Greek family is common (Petrogiannis & Dragonas, 2013). In recent years, however, high unemploy-ment, job insecurity, and the absence of social policies to support young people's independence have created differentcontextual conditions for young adults in Greece and other Southern countries than for those in the Northern Europeancountries. These conditions have led to an increase of the number of young adults living with their parents during theirstudies and even longer after. Due to the financial crisis in Greece, many families have come together again to cope withunemployment and make ends meet.

The present study

To the best of our knowledge, there is no study examining the dynamics of the intimate relationships that adolescents andemerging adults endorse with their mothers and fathers in the Greek context and how these affect their intimate relation-ships with their peers.

In the past, scholars considered intimacy as a fixed personal characteristic, serving as aworkingmodel of self, allowing theperson to establish similar relationships with other people. In addition, scholars working within social learning theoriessuggested that individuals replicate their intimate relationships with their mother and father and thus they directly affecttheir intimate relationships with their peers, thereby explaining gender differences. Although these two theoretical frame-works explain an important variance of intimate relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood, there is someevidence that in any relationship, the other person in the dyad is also an important element that could affect intimacy.

In the present study, we were keen to examine whether adolescents and emerging adults have a repertoire of intimaterelationships which they call on each time, depending on who the other person in the dyad is. This investigation calls forconcurrent measurements of the intimate relationships with the different important others. We examined concurrent inti-mate relationships in four dyads: the individual with his/her mother, father, female and male peers (instead of parents orpeers in general).

In sum, we had five aims in conducting the present study. First, we wanted to determine whether the intimacy that Greekadolescents and emerging adults perceive with their four important partners, namely the mother, the father and female ormale peers, is explained by a single, unvarying personal characteristic (i.e. a personal characteristic that formed through theattachment to parents) or whether it can also be explained by unique intimate relationships with each of the other partners.We hypothesized that intimate relationships that individuals endorse with each one of these important partners share bothunified personal characteristics and unique characteristics depending on who is the other in the relationship (Hypothesis 1).

Second, we were keen to explore the quality of intimate relationships with four partners with whom adolescents andemerging adults are related. On the basis of current views of separation-individuation (see Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins,2003) and autonomy-relatedness perspectives (Youniss & Smollar, 1985), and taking into account the support role ofmothers in the Greek family, we assumed that Greek young people, in addition to more intimate relationships with theirpeers (especially of the opposite sex), would also maintain highly intimate relationship with their parents, especially theirmothers (Hypothesis 2).

Third, we aimed to examine whether intimate relationships that adolescents and emerging adults perceive with the fourpartners in question are similar or if they differ between the two age groups. Recent longitudinal studies have revealed that



emotional closeness with a mother and father does not follow similar patterns of continuity for adolescents and young adults(Tsai et al., 2013). Bearing in mind the prominent role of the mother in the Greek family, we hypothesized that the perceivedintimacy with the mother would be high for both adolescents and emerging adults (Tsai et al., 2013), while the perceivedintimacy of relationships with the father would be lower in the older group (Hypothesis 3). On the other hand, we expectedthat the intimacy of relationships with peers, especially those of the opposite sex, would gradually increase during thetransition from adolescence to emerging adulthood (Hypothesis 4).

Fourth, we aimed to investigate the dynamics of the relationships between these four important others and more spe-cifically whether the intimacy perceived by Greek young people in their relationships with family members (father andmother) could predict the intimacy of their relationships with their peers of the same or the opposite sex and if these dynamicrelationships are similar for both genders and all age groups. There is some evidence that adolescents use the intimate re-lationships they have with their parents as a working model of self to explore their relationships with others (Bartholomew&Horowitz, 1991; Hazan& Shaver, 1994; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman,& Klessinger, 2001). We hypothesizedthat the intimate relationships that adolescents and emerging adults endorsed with their peers would have been affected bythe intimate relationships they experienced with their mother and father (Hypothesis 5).

Fifth, we aimed to capture possible gender differences in the aforementioned intimate relationships. There is sufficientevidence that females value and endorse their intimate relationships with their family more than their intimate relationshipswith males (Lye, 1996) or their peers (Montgomery, 2005). It is predicted that females will endorse higher intimacy thanmales in all dyads (Hypothesis 6). However, intimate relationships with different partners create a complex network thatcould not be interpreted solely on the basis of the gender of the individuals. The gender of the ‘other’ in the dyad is animportant aspect of the intimacy the individual experiences (Dindia& Allen,1992;Monsour,1992). It is also predicted that theintimacy of the relationships in female dyads (i.e. female with female peers and with mother) will be higher than in maledyads (males with male peers and fathers) (Hypothesis 7).

Method

Participants

This study was part of a larger research project on the development of interpersonal relationships from childhood toemerging adulthood. Six hundred and thirteen (N ¼ 613; females ¼ 348; 56.8%) adolescents and emerging adults frommanyregions of Greece participated in the study. There were 395 (217 females; 54.9%) Greek adolescents with a mean age of 16.51years (SD¼ 0.61, from 15.5 to 17.58 years; range¼ 2.08 years) and 218 (131 females; 60%) emerging adults with a mean age of19.06, (SD ¼ 1.49, from 17.67 to 23.75 years; range ¼ 6.08). Most participants were of Greek origin (97.7%), with a smallrepresentation from Balkan (1.8%) and Asian (0.5%) countries. Late adolescents were recruited from secondary schools inGreece after obtaining parental consent. Older participants were university students “living apart and together” (Billari et al.,2008) with their families.

Materials

Items from the Clinical Assessment of Interpersonal Relationships Scale (CAIR) (Bracken, 1993; Bracken & Newman, 1995)were adopted for this study. This measure assesses perceptions of children aged 10e18 years regarding the quality of theirrelationships with important partners in their lives (mother, father, male and female peers). Thus, the study employed a one-with-many design (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) in that participants answered questions about their intimacy relationshipswith significant others. The intimacy subscale was formed by nine items (items 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 17,18, 24 and 34 of the CAIR scale)measuring intimacy (e.g. “I can express my true feelings when I amwith my… father, mother, female peers and male peers”)and companionship (e.g. “When I am feeling good, I like to be around my … father, mother, female peers and male peers”).The participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a 4-point Likert scale (1 ¼ fully disagree to 4 ¼ fully agree).

Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high for the items loaded to the four components (a¼ .89, a ¼ .84, a ¼ .83, and a ¼ .81for mother, father, female peers and male peers, respectively). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) suggested that a modelwith four correlated factors, each for an important partner, fitted the data reasonable well (for details see Results section). Thestructural invariance and equivalence of the scale across the two age groups and gender were examined with Multi-groupConfirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA).

Results

The unified and unique characteristic of intimacy e companionship relationships

In order to ascertain whether the intimate relationships with the four important partners could be explained by a singleunderlying factor or whether a role is also played by unique intimate relationships with each one of the partners, we per-formed a series of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) using the EQSWIN (Bentler & Wu, 2003). First a model with all the 36items regressed to one factor was examined. Givenmultivariate non-normality (normalized estimate of Mardia's multivariatekurtosis ¼ 84.59 value greater that 5.0), the ML robust method of estimation was employed (Byrne, 2006). Thus, the robust



estimates such as SatorraeBentler (SeB) chi square, CFI, RMSEA and its 90% CI were used. The model had weak fit with ourdata (see Table 1, Model 1). Then, we tested whether our participants perceive unique intimate relationships with eachimportant partner. The nine items referred to each partner regressed to one factor. This model also had a weak fit with ourdata (see Table 1, Model 2). Then the model that assumed a correlation between the intimacy with the four partners wasperformed. This model was found to have a better albeit not acceptable fit (Table 1 Model 3), but it improved to an acceptablelevel when correlation among errors between the items measuring intimacy and companionship and correlation amongerrors of the same item in the four partners were allowed (Table 3, Model 4). Covariances between the four partners of thismodel were estimated (mother to father, female peers, male peers .59, .33, and�.01 ns respectively; father to female andmalepeers .12 and .22; and female to male peers �.12). Standardized item loadings ranged between .45 and .73. The good fit of themodel does not rule out that other alternative models could fit to our data. We conducted a second-order analysis to obtain adifferent, more generalized, perspective of the intimacy relationships. It was hypothesized that the first order factors (rep-resenting the intimacy relationships with each of the important partners) were uncorrelated and they all contributed to asecond order factor of intimacy relationships of the relational self that would be made up of all four of the intimacy re-lationships. This model also had an acceptable fit and the two models did not significantly differ (Table 1, Model 5). Althoughthis model was also found to be plausible, the parameter estimates showed that the intimacy relationshipwith themother is avery strong first order factor (standardized factor loading to the second order factor equals 1.00). This could be probablyinterpreted by the prominent role of the Greek mother as intimacy provider. Additionally, as evidenced by the low estimates(standardized factor loading �.015), the intimacy with male peers is not so strong contributor to the second order latentfactor. Therefore, the model that assumes that intimate relationships characterize the individual and at the same time theintimate relationships individuals share have some unique characteristics depending on the other person in the dyad had abetter fit with our data.

In order to answer our research questions, we first need to examine whether the questionnaire functions similarly acrossthe different groups and whether our participants interpret the items in a similar manner (Gregorich, 2006). In other words,we need to verify whether the measurement of the questionnaire is invariant across the groups (Tagliabue& Lanz, 2014). Thiswas accomplished usingmeasurement invariance analyses of model 4 within a CFA framework. Four CFAs were performed onthe data separately for the females, males, adolescents, and emerging adults. The analyses showed a reasonable fit with allmodels (see Table 1, Models 4ae4d) with standardized loadings ranging between .342 and .854.

Structural equivalence of the scale and descriptive statistics

In the above analyses, however, each group was analyzed separately and without constraints. Then measurementinvariance analyses were performed to examine the extent of measurement invariance of the intimacy responses across thetwo age groups and genders with the imposition progressively restrictive cross-group equality constraints (i.e. configuralinvariance, factor loading-metric invariance, intercept invariance, and residual invariance). Conventionally, the Dc2test isused for testing the hypothesis of model invariance (J€oreskog& S€orbom, 2001). Because of the limitations of the conventionalDc2test, different tests were proposed for evaluating measurement invariance. According to Cheung and Rensvold (2002),comparison of Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) may be based on the difference of the CFI values (DCFI)between the less constrained and the more constrained MGCFA model. A DCFI value greater than 0.01 indicates meaningfuldifference between the two MGCFA models. The analysis with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation converged to admissiblesolutions for both (age groups and gender) MGCFA (for Fit-Indexes see Table 2).

The good fit of the configural invariance model shows that the items were conceptualized in the same way by the groupsinvolved in the analyses (Cheung& Rensvold, 2002). The good fit of the factor-loadingmetric invariancemodel provided evenstronger evidence that the four latent factors have the same meaning across the groups involved in the analyses (Gregorich,2006). The good fit of the intercept invariance showed that the means values of the items were invariant across the sub-groups, and therefore the mean scores of each latent factor could be calculated. The strict invariance model, where theequality constraints imposed on the item residuals and on the item intercepts concurrently indicated that the measurement

Table 1Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the unidirectional or reciprocal character of the intimacy relationships.

CFA models SeB c2 df c2/df p Robust CFI Robust RMSEA Robust RMSEA 90% CI

Model 1: Intimacy as unified personal characteristic 4623.88 594 7.78 <.001 .397 .108 .105e.111Model 2: Unique intimacy relationships with each partner 2665.37 594 4.49 <.001 .690 .078 .074e.080Model 3: Distinct and correlated intimacy relationships 2416.74 588 4.45 <.001 .726 .073 .070e076Model 4: Distinct and correlated intimacy relationships

(correlations among errors were added)959.81 529 1.81 <.001 .936 .037 .034e.041

Model 4a: Females 706.99 476 1.48 <.001 .910 .049 .041e.056Model 4b: Males 730.24 476 1.53 <.001 .901 .046 .039e.052Model 4c: Adolescents 808.56 476 1.70 <.001 .925 .043 .038e.048Model 4d: Emerging Adults 639.14 476 1.34 <.001 .933 .041 .032e.049

Model 5: Unique intimacy relationships and second orderlatent factor (correlations among errors were added)

991.79 531 1.87 <.001 .931 .039 .035e.042

Note. SeB c2 ¼ SattoraeBentler Scaled c2; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean squared error of approximation.


Table 2Goodness of fit indexes for the cross-age group and cross-gender measurement invariance models.

Multi-group CFA models SeB c2 df c2/df p Robust CFI DCFI Robust RMSEA Robust RMSEA 90% CI

Model 1: cross-age measurement invariance1a. Configural invariance 1445.83 952 1.52 <.001 .927 .030 .027e.0331b. Full metric invariance 1482.90 988 1.50 <.001 .927 .000 .029 .026e.0321c. Intercept invariance 1540.19 1024 1.50 <.001 .926 .001 .030 .026e.0321d. Strict residual invariance 1670.30 1060 1.56 <.001 .918 .008 .032 .029e.034

Model 2: cross-gender measurement invariance2a. Configural invariance 1438.80 952 1.51 <.001 .905 .033 .030e.0372b. Full metric invariance 1477.27 988 1.49 <.001 905 .000 033 .029e.0362c. Intercept invariance 1800.67 1024 1.76 <.001 .901 .004 .043 .040e.0462d. Strict residual invariance 1903.38 1060 1.79 <.001 .890 .006 .044 .041e.047

Note. SeB c2 ¼ SattoraeBentler Scaled c2; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean squared error of approximation. DCFI is <.01 indicatingmeasurement invariance of the scale between the two age groups and gender.


error is identical across the groups (Vlachopoulos, 2012). Overall, these findings suggest that, in the present data, all of theitem loadings are invariant and equivalent, having the same meaning and identical variance of the items not explained by thelatent factor across adolescents and emerging adults as well as across females andmales. Thus, any cross-group differences inthe observed means are held to be unbiased estimates of group differences in the latent factor means and might be used forvalid cross-gender and cross-age comparisons of latent factor variances, covariances, and/or regression coefficients betweenlatent factors.

Relationship type scores for each of the four partners were created by averaging the nine items. Descriptive statistics for allthe subgroups and for the total sample for each of the four partners are presented in Table 3. Overall, the means across eachgroup were higher than 2.5. That is, both Greek adolescents and emerging adults endorsed distinct, solid intimate re-lationships with all partners examined in this study.

To test whether adolescents and emerging adults, males and females perceived intimate experiences differently with thefour partners examined in this study (i.e. mother, father, female and male peers), a mixed-design ANOVA with a within-participants factor the mean scores calculated from the nine items for each of the four (mother, father, female peers andmale peers) partners (relation type score) and two between-participants factors, age group (adolescents, emerging adults)and sex (female, male). Mauchly's test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, c2(2, N ¼ 613) ¼ 115.58,p < .001. Therefore degrees of freedomwere corrected using Greenhouse-Geiser (1959) estimates of sphericity (ε¼ 0.88). Theanalysis showed a significant within-participants main effect, F(2.64, 1525.09) ¼ 30.81, p < .001, MSE ¼ 8.34, h2p ¼ .051. Post hoctest using the Bonferroni correction (p < .01) revealed that the participants perceived significantly less (p < .001) intimaterelations with their fathers (M ¼ 2.74, SD ¼ .59) thanwith the three other partners; mothers (M ¼ 2.95, SD ¼ .67), male peers(M ¼ 2.95, SD ¼ .52) and female peers (M ¼ 3.05, SD ¼ .52). Moreover, post hoc test revealed that the intimate relationshipswith the other three partners (mothers, female peers and male peers) are perceived almost at the same level (p > .05).

Furthermore, a significant relationship type score by sex interaction was obtained, F(2.64, 1525.09) ¼ 68.73, p < .001,MSE ¼ 18.61, h2p ¼ .106. Subsequent one-way ANOVAs showed that the intimacy that adolescents and emerging adultsendorsed with their fathers is at the same level for both males (M ¼ 2.76, SD ¼ .58) and females (M ¼ 2.72, SD ¼ .59),F(1,588) ¼ 1.06, p ¼ .30. However, females (M ¼ 3.09, SD ¼ .64) endorsed higher intimate relations with their mothers thanmales did (M ¼ 2.76, SD ¼ .66), F(1,602) ¼ 34.01, p < .001. Additionally, females endorsed higher intimate relations with theirfemale peers (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ .45) than males did (M ¼ 2.79, SD ¼ .48), F(1,605) ¼ 119.64, p < .001. In contrast, males endorsedhigher intimacy with male peers (M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ .49) than the females did (M ¼ 2.82, SD ¼ .50), F(1,601) ¼ 65.29, p < .001. Noother significant interactions were found. That is, both males and females endorsed less intimate relationships with theirfather, while females endorsed higher intimacy with their mother than the males did. Finally, the intimacy with same sexpeers was found to be higher than with opposite sex peers.

Table 3Means and standard deviations of the intimacy relationships with important partners.

Group Perceived intimacy with important partners

Mother Father Female peers Male peers

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Adolescents (n ¼ 395) 2.91 .69 2.72 .61 3.05 .53 2.94 .53Females (n ¼ 217) 3.06 .67 2.70 .63 3.25 .48 2.78 .52Males (n ¼ 178) 2.72 .67 2.74 .59 2.81 .48 3.13 .48

Emerging Adults (n ¼ 218) 3.01 .63 2.78 .55 3.06 .50 2.99 .50Females (n ¼ 131) 3.14 .59 2.76 .55 3.25 .41 2.87 .47Males (n ¼ 87) 2.84 .64 2.82 .54 2.77 .47 3.16 .51

Total (N ¼ 613) 2.95 .67 2.74 .59 3.05 .52 2.96 .52Females (n ¼ 348) 3.09 .64 2.72 .60 3.25 .45 2.81 .50Males (n ¼ 265) 2.76 .66 2.76 .58 2.80 .48 3.14 .49


Fig. 1. The path model for the intimacy relationships between parents and peers.


The intimate pattern of relationships with parents and peers

A path-analytic model tested the dynamic relations between the perceived intimate relationships with family members(father and mother) and intimate relationships with female andmale peers (EQSWIN; Bentler&Wu, 2003). The target modelspecified direct relationships of intimacy with mothers and fathers to the intimacy with female and male peers, while theintimacy with mother and father allowed to be correlated (see Fig. 1). That is, the intimate relationships with peers arepredicted from the intimate relationships with the father and mother, while the correlation between parents reflects theshared common characteristic of each family.

The tests were initiated with totally non-invariant model that could serve as a baseline model for testing models withmore restrictions. Given multivariate non-normality, the ML robust method of estimation was employed (Byrne, 2006). Themodel demonstrated a very strong fit (Table 4, Model 1). With the imposition of the correlation between female and malepeers, the model was found no longer to be true. That is, among our participants, the intimacyecompanionship relationshipsbetweenmales and female peers are perceived as distinct. Furthermore, in order to ensure our hypothesis for the direction ofthe relationship, an alternative model assuming that the intimacy relationships with peers contributes to the intimacy re-lationships perceived with father and mother was examined. This model had a weak fit to our data (Table 4, Model 4).

Multi-group analysis for the prediction of intimate relationships with peers

As themodel had a good fit with the data, it allowed a comparison ofmore constrainedMGCFAmodels. Next we proceededto the multi-group model comparisons based on the efficiency of the Dc2, DCFI and to DMc NCI as the indexes of the multi-group differences (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; J€oreskog & S€orbom, 2001). Meade, Johnson, and Braddy (2006) suggested that,for samples sizes more than 200, the DMc NCI is more appropriate than DCFI, which is sensitive to degrees of freedom. Theresults supported a lack of difference among all the multi-sample models.

Specifically, a model was estimated in which path or regression coefficients were allowed to differ across the two agegroups, adolescents and emerging adults (Table 4, Model 2a). This model provided an adequate fit with the data. Then weestimated a model (Table 4, Model 2b) in which all variances, covariances and paths were constrained to be invariant acrossthe two age groups. The difference between the unconstrained and constrained model was not significant, Dc2(5) ¼ 4.836,p > .001, DCFI¼ .000, DMcDonald's Noncentrality Index¼ .001. Therefore, the model of Fig.1 was simultaneously fitted to twocovariance matrices, and path coefficients are invariant across adolescents and emerging adults.

Then another model was estimated, in which path of regression coefficients were allowed to differ across the gender. Thismodel provided an adequate fit with the data (Table 4, Model 3a). Then we estimated a model in which all variances, co-variances and paths were constrained to be invariant across females and males (Table 4, Model 3b). The difference betweenthe unconstrained and constrainedmodel was not significant,Dc2(5)¼ 2.01, p > .001, DCFI¼ .019,DMcDonald's NoncentralityIndex ¼ .004. Therefore, path coefficients are also invariant across gender.

Table 4Fit indexes of multi-group path models on the relations between the intimacies experienced among the four partners.

Path models SeB c2 df c2/df p Robust CFI Robust NNFI Robust McNCI Robust RMSEA RobustRMSEA 90% CI

Model 1: Baseline model 1.80 1 1.80 .671 1.00 1.00 1.00 .000 .000e.083Model 2: multi-group age group2a.Unconstrained multi-sample model 1.72 2 0.86 .424 1.00 1.00 1.00 .000 .000e.0792b. Constrained multi-sample model 6.56 7 0.94 .476 1.00 1.00 .999 .000 .000e.049

Model 3: multi-group gender3a. Unconstrained multi-sample model 8.97 2 4.48 .012 .957 .738 .992 .087 .035e.1493b. Constrained multi-sample model 10.98 7 1.57 .140 .975 .957 .996 .035 .000e.073

Model 4: Reversed model 127.55 1 127.55 <.001 .378 .391 .897 .467 .399e.536

Note. SeB c2 ¼ SattoraeBentler Scaled c2; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; McNCI ¼ McDonald's Noncentrality Index; RMSEA ¼ root mean squared error ofapproximation.



In sum, the MGCFA showed that the model in Fig. 1 has a good fit with our data and is invariant across the criticalperiods of life namely the adolescence and emerging adulthood and across gender. Thus, the model might be indicative ofthe dynamic intimate relationships that the Greek adolescents and emerging adults have established with their parents andpeers.

Fig. 1 illustrates the resulting path coefficients of the baseline model where all participants were included in the analysisand the correlation between the intimate relationships that participants endorsed with their parents. The level of intimacythat participants endorsed with mothers and fathers was positively correlated (r ¼ .56; r ¼ .58, and r ¼ .60 for the baselinemodel and for the constrainedmodel for age groups and gender respectively, all ps < .05), revealing the intimacy status withinthe family. The effect of intimacywithmothers and fathers onmale and female peers was statistically significant (R2¼ .05 andR2 ¼ .08 for the males and females for the baseline model; R2 ¼ .05 and R2 ¼ .08 for the constrained model for age groups andR2 ¼ .03 and R2 ¼ .06 for the constrained model for gender respectively). Those participants who endorsed higher intimacywith their fathers were more likely to endorse higher intimate relations with their male peers (b ¼ .273 for the baselinemodel; b¼ .283, and b¼ .201, for the constrained for age groupsmodel, and for gendermodel respectively, all ps < .05), whilehigher intimate relationships with mothers contributed negatively to the intimacy of relationships with male peers(b ¼ �.159, p < .05 for the baseline model; b ¼ �.172, p < .05, and b ¼ �.064, p > .05 for the constrained for age groups andgender model respectively). However, the intimacy with mothers significantly contributed to the establishment of intimaterelationships with the female peers (b ¼ .330 for the baseline model; b ¼ .330 and b ¼ .243 for the constrained for age groupsand gender model respectively, all ps < .05), while the intimate relationships with fathers contributed negatively to theintimacy of relationships with the female peers (b ¼ �.087 for the baseline model; b ¼ �.086, and b ¼ �.001 for the con-strained for age groups and gender model respectively, all ps > .05).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to explore the dynamics of the intimate relationships that male and female adolescents andemerging adults endorse with four partners playing an important role in their lives, namely, mother, father, and female andmale peers, in Greece. We examined the intimate relationships that individuals perceive with these important partners asdynamic and reciprocal, shaped within the context of the Greek familism and how the Greek young people are gendered andsubject to changes during the transitional period from adolescence to emerging adulthood (Brown & Bakken, 2011).

The first indication regarding our assumption for the reciprocal or unidirectional character of the intimate relationshipscame from the structural model. Greek adolescents and emerging adults were found to endorse distinct but correlated re-lationships of companionshipeintimacy with the four important partners examined in this study. In accordance to our firsthypothesis, the structural model indicated that although these are clearly distinguishable, they share some underlyingcommonalities. The alternative models, which examined either the uniqueness of the intimate relationships individualsperceive with their important partners or intimacy as a unified common personal characteristic explaining the intimaterelationships with all other partners, did not fit with our data. In contrast, the four-factor model in which the correlationsamong the four latent variables were allowed to be correlated and equally constrained produced a model with good fit withthe data, suggesting that the intimate relationships our participants endorsed to the four important partners are separablebut correlated constructs. This model exhibited no significant differences between the two age subgroups (i.e. adolescentsand emerging adults) and gender, indicating that the model showing both unity and diversity is evident during adolescenceand remains valid during emerging adulthood.

What might the source(s) of the commonality in intimate relationships be? Although a precise definition of the nature ofthe underlying commonality is beyond the scope of this article, at least three explanations seem plausible. The idea of theunity of intimate relationships is compatiblewith a fair number of proposals suggesting that the attachment (Bowlby,1973) tothe parents is used as an internal working model and a secure base from which to explore later peer relationships (e.g.Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Indeed, as the second order model showed (Table 1, Model 5), the intimacy relationshipswith the mother found to strongly contribute to the second order latent factor representing the relational self with theimportant others as an idiographic characteristic of the personality (Andersen & Chen, 2002). Thus, even though this modelwas not adopted for statistical reasons as the final solution in our study, it provides a cue that the intimacy relationship ourparticipants endorsed with their mother is not significantly differentiated from the idiographic characteristic of their per-sonality that guides the exploration of the intimacy relationships with the important others. Alternatively, this idea could bean indication that our participants replicate their intimate relationships with their parents when they develop intimaterelationships with their peers (e.g. Allen, Hauser, O'Connor,& Bell, 2002; Black, 2002; Updegraff et al., 2004). Finally, it is quitepossible that adolescents and emerging adults have already crystallized their own model for their intimate relationships andthey use it in their everyday intimate relationships with both parents and peers (see also for a similar interpretation Black,2002). Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate explanation.

The most important thing for the purposes of this study, however, was to reveal patterns capturing unique intimate re-lationships with other partners and to examine whether specific characteristics of the other person in the dyad producesimilar patterns in perceived intimate relationships (e.g. Dindia & Allen, 1992; Monsour, 1992; Prager, 1995; Weimer et al.,2004). The evidence from the structural model allowed us to explore in greater depth the characteristics of the other thatdetermine the pattern of the perceived intimate relationships. We isolated four important issues that differentiated thequality of intimate relationships.



Intimacy with parents vs. intimacy with peers

In accordance with our second hypothesis, the reported intimacy with peers was found to be higher (although significantonly for the father) than the reported intimacy with parents, denoting the expected shift in intimate relationships fromparents to peers (Buhrmester, 1996; Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins, 2003). Although Greek adolescents live ‘apart and together’with their families, lacking a crucial element to promote their self-reliance and emotional autonomy (Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2007; Kins & Beyers, 2010; Seiffge-Krenke, 2006), and Greek familism values close relationships with family mem-bers more (see also Greenfield et al., 2003; Lanz & Tagliabue, 2007; Mendonca & Fonaine, 2013; Moreno, 2012 for similarattitudes in Italy, Portugal and Spain respectively), peers are the partners to whom Greek adolescents and emerging adultsturn for companionship and intimacy, endorsing the best quality among the partners examined here. That is, in terms of theindividuation-connectedness perspective (Youniss & Smollar, 1985), they show elements of successful individuation as itseems that they have found a balance between their autonomous self and maintenance of close intimacy relationship withthe family. We could argue that in communities in which it is an acceptable cultural arrangement for emerging adults to livetogether with their parents, living apart and together does not constrain young people in developing their emotional au-tonomy. In these communities, young people probably follow different paths to gaining their self-reliance and emotionalautonomy.

Intimacy with peers of the same sex vs. intimacy with peers of the opposite sex

Our participants were found to feel closer to peers of the same sex than to peers of the opposite sex. Greekmales endorsedcloser intimate relationships with male peers and females with their female peers. This is contrary to our hypothesis (Hy-pothesis 4) and to previous research suggesting that intimacy with opposite-sex peers increases from adolescence (e.g.Sharabany et al., 1981; Shulman et al., 2009). We could argue that during this period peers of the same sex may fulfill othernewly emerged needs, such as helping them to initiate or to recover from failed romantic relationships (Seiffge-Krenke,2003). Moreover, until recently in Greece, males traditionally gathered in the local cafes (‘kafeneion’) or took part in male-oriented sports (e.g. football) where females met other females more frequently at social events (e.g. preparation of wed-dings, funerals, memorial services, etc.). Althoughwe could find only relics of this tradition inmodern Greece, its social aspect(i.e. males having intimate relationships withmales) still seems to be evident these days, probably fulfilling some other needsthat individuals of the same sex might have.

Intimacy with the mother vs. intimacy with the father

The intimate relationship with the mother does not significantly differ from the intimacy of the relationship with peers.According to our hypothesis (Hypothesis 3 for the mother), the intimacy perceived with mothers, although at a lower level,remains high and in parallel to the new emerging intimate relationships that adolescents and emerging adults establish withtheir peers. It is known that supportive mothers remain more powerful over time and young people see them as a guide (DeGoede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). As it has been noted earlier, the Greek mother has the role of the intimacy provider in theframework of the Greek familism (Papataxiarchis, 2012; Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967). Moreover, regardless the special rela-tionship that the Greekmother has with her son (Triandis& Vassiliou,1967), daughters feel closer to themother than sons do.That is, when the dyad includes individuals encouraged by society to be intimacy providers, the level of perceived intimacy ishigh. Therefore, this evidence too supports our hypothesis (Hypotheses 6 and 7 for female dyads). Intimate relationships withmothers during adolescence and emerging adulthood are not eventually replaced by intimate relationship with peers. Thus,to refer to a decrease in closeness to parents during this transitional period is generally not appropriate, because in specificcontexts closeness to the mother remains at a high level over time.

Fathers are considered to provide less intimacy than any other partner (see Hypothesis 3 for the father). However, the lowperceived intimacy with fathers compared to mothers is in accordance with previous evidence suggesting that adolescents ingeneral perceive closer relationships with mothers thanwith fathers (Collins & Russell, 1991; Tsai et al., 2013). Moreover, thefather is distant and unreachable for both males and females. Thus, when the dyad includes individuals that society en-courages to be distant (see Paxson, 2004), the expected and ultimately the perceived intimacy with this partner is usually low(Hypotheses 6 & 7 for male dyads). However, contrary to our expectations, when the partners are male peers the endorsedintimacy is high.

Does intimacy with the parents affect the intimacy with the peers?

The idea that the quality of relationships with parents can be used as models for future romantic relationships has been along-standing issue in attachment research (see, for example, Hazan & Shaver, 1994) and recent longitudinal research haslinked the quality of parent and adolescent relationships to future romantic outcomes (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Seiffge-Krenkeet al., 2001). Thus, in this study, we hypothesized (see Hypothesis 5) that perceived intimate relationships with mothers andfathers could predict intimate relationships that participants endorsed with their female and male peers (Glick et al., 2013).However, the pattern of the intimate relationships between the four partners was found to be more dynamic. Apart from thegender of the participant, the intimacy perceived with the father contributes to the intimacy perceived with male peers, and



the intimacy perceived with the mother contributes to the intimacy perceived only with female peers. Surprisingly, themother (father) contributes negatively to the intimacy of relationships with male (female) peers. It is not the identification ofthe males with their father or of the females with their mother that contributes to the intimacy of relationships with peerseither of the same or of the opposite sex, as socialization theories suggest (Chodorow, 1978; see also Sneed et al., 2006). Theintimacy of relationships seems to be influenced by gender but in a different way.When the other person in the dyad is a male(father or peer), an internalizedmodel formales is activated, while an analogousmodel is internalized for females. In a societywhere the intimacy providers within the family are determined by gender and attributed to females, young people internalizethis pattern through their experience in the family, and through their socialization they learn to whom they should turn forintimate relationships. This is evident in statements such as “intimacy is for women not men” or “men do not cry” to denotethat males should not express their emotions. So, as they are growing up, Greek adolescents and emerging adults areconditioned by gender to have higher expectations of intimacy with females than with males. Therefore, using sex as anindependent variable in order to examine intimate relationships does not always lead to safe conclusions. The mostappropriate approach is to examine the persons involved in a specific dyad and in parallel to consider the way individualshave acquired their gender roles in their specific culture.

To sum up, in this study we hypothesized that, regardless of the common characteristics stemming from a person'sdevelopmental history, the intimacy that Greek adolescents and emerging adults perceive with the four important others willhave also some unique characteristics. While it is true that the intimate relationships with the four important partners sharesome common characteristics reflecting the person who endorses the intimate relationships, intimate relationships are alsoreciprocal, depending onwho is the other partner in the dyad. Although previous research noted that the attachment style ofthe individuals in a dyad explained a portion of the closeness of the relationship (e.g.Weimer et al., 2004), or the gender of thepartners in the dyad (e.g. Dindia & Allen, 1992), this study found that the context inwhich individuals learn about the genderroles is also important in explaining the intimate relationships that adolescents and emerging adults perceive (see alsoGreenfield et al., 2003).

Our participants were found to have constructed a repertoire of intimate relationships through the way they had beengendered in the Greek context. Greek familism requires females to be more intimate than males. Thus, regardless of thegender of the individual, the intimate relationship perceived with the mother contributes to the intimate relationship withfemale peers, and the intimate relationship perceived with the father contributes to the intimate relationship with malepeers. In other words, intimate relationships are formed in accordance with how adolescents and emerging adults aregendered within a specific context. This seems to be very strong and difficult to change during the transitional period fromadolescence to emerging adulthood. The pattern of intimate relationships with important partners seems to be so stronglyconsolidated in the previous years that it is no longer affected by new conditions during adolescence and emerging adulthood(see also Rose & Rudolph, 2006).

Moreover, individuals endorse closer relationships in a dyad where both members are high intimacy providers (i.e. bothfemales) than if only one of them is supposed to be intimacy provider (i.e. mother e son, father e daughter, or peers ofopposite sex). An exception to this rule is intimacy among male peers. Male adolescents and emerging adults both endorsedcloser intimate relationships with their male peers. Intimacy among males is also encouraged by the Greek familism.

The above conclusions reached for Greek young people could have relevance in other contexts as well, since recent evi-dence has shown that familism is also strong in Eastern Europe and in several English speaking communities (Calzada &Brooks, 2013).

A few limitations of this study deserve consideration. First, our data was based on the one-with-many design. Thus, we donot know if the perceived intimacy with the other partners is reciprocal (see Kenny et al., 2006). Second, in this study wemeasured the perceived intimacy relationships and not the actual behavior. Third, the measurement invariance acrossrelationship types could be tested in future research in order to be sure that the differences are not due tomeasurement issues(Tagliabue & Lanz, in press). Fourth, the regressions in the path model yielded relatively small (5% and 8% for the males andfemales respectively) amount of explained variance. We acknowledge that the intimacy relationship with the parents is oneamong many of the resources that contribute to the perceived intimacy relationship with the peers. Although it was notexpected to be higher, future research should investigate other dimensions that could explain another significant amount ofthe variance. Fifth, our emerging adult participants were attending university and they had a reason to be connected withtheir family that financially supports their studies while their parents are proud for their offspring who attend university.Thus, it could be reasonable to bemore connectedwith their parents. Future studies could compare the current evidencewithemerging adults whowork or they are still unemployed. Finally, as the study was a cross-sectional study, the interpretation ofthe causality of the associations should be strengthened through longitudinal studies.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the possible repertoire of intimate relationships which adolescents andemerging adults call on depending onwho the other person in the dyad is, and if this repertoire is influenced by the context ofGreek familism. Our data support the idea that the intimate relationships adolescents and emerging adults endorse with theirparents and peers reflect some personal characteristics of the individual but also depend onwho the other person in the dyadis. The Greek familism encourages different expectations of intimacy relationships with males and females and both ado-lescents and emerging adults are gendered with higher expectations of intimacy relationships with females thanwith males.



That is to say, through socialization individuals learn not only how to behave according to their gender (i.e. replicating theintimacy perceived with the parent of the same sex), but also what intimacy relationships they have to anticipate from theother person in the dyad depending on that person's gender. Future studies should consider seriously the role of thecontextual factors in shaping expectations of relationships.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful suggestions.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709e716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709.Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., O'Connor, T. G., & Bell, K. L. (2002). Prediction of peer-rated adult hostility from autonomy struggles in adolescent-family in-

teractions. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 123e137.Allison, M. D., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Differentiation and individuation as mediators of identity and intimacy in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research,

3, 1e16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074355488831002.Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619e645. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1037//0033-295X.109.4.619.Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469e480. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.Banfield, E. C. (1958). Moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 61, 226e244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226.Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2003). EQS structural equations program, Version 6.1. [Computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2007). Are friends and romantic partners the “best medicine”? How the quality of other close relations mediates the impact

of changing family relationships on adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 559e568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025407080571.

Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy: testing Erikson's theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21stcentury. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 387e415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370.

Billari, F., Rosina, A., Ranaldi, R., & Romano, C. (2008). Young adults living apart and together (LAT) with parents: a three-level analysis of the Italian case.Regional Studies, 42, 625e639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543173.

Black, K. A. (2002). Associations between adolescentemother and adolescentebest friend interactions. Adolescence, 37, 235e253.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.Bracken, B. A. (1993). Assessment of interpersonal relations. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Bracken, B. A., & Newman, V. L. (1995). Child and adolescent interpersonal relations with parents, peers and teachers: a factor analytic investigation.

Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 10, 108e122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/082957359501000203.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. 291e329). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Brown, B. B., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Parenting and peer relationships: reinvigorating research on familyepeer linkages in adolescence. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 21, 153e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00720.x.Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental context of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F.

Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158e185). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101e1113.Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects of emotional support: what the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close re-

lationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00033.Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, application, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Calzada, I., & Brooks, C. (2013). The Myth of Mediterranean Familism: family values, family structure and public preferences for state intervention in care.

European Societies, 15, 514e534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.836402.Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233e255.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: a developmental analysis. Devel-

opmental Review, 11, 99e136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(91)90004-8.Collins, W. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1999). Capacity for intimate relationships: a developmental construction. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The

development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125e147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631e652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/

annurev.psych.60.110707.163459.Craig-Bray, L., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1988). Identity formation and social relations during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17,

173e187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01537966.De Goede, I. H., Branje, S. J., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Developmental changes in adolescents' perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 38, 75e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9286-7.Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.

112.1.106.Dyk, P. H., & Adams, G. R. (1990). Identity and intimacy: an initial investigation of three theoretical models using cross-lag panel correlations. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 19, 91e110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01538715.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Freeman, H., & Brown, B. B. (2001). Primary attachment to parents and peers during adolescence: differences by attachment style. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 30, 653e674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012200511045.Fuligni, A., & Masten, C. L. (2010). Daily family interactions among young adults in the United States from Latin American, Filipino, East Asian, and European

backgrounds. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 491e499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025409360303.Glick, G. C., Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2013). Associations of mothers' friendship quality with adolescents' friendship quality and emotional

adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 730e743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12021.Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461e490.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145221.Greenhouse, S. W., & Geiser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrica, 4, 95e112.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0140-1971(14)00132-8/sref2



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074355488831002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.619

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.619

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025407080571

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025407080571

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543173







http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/082957359501000203




http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00720.x







http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00033


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.836402

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(91)90004-8




http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01537966

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9286-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01538715


http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012200511045

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025409360303

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12021





Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance usingthe confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical care, 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1.

Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2000). Social support from parents and friends and emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 29, 319e335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005147708827.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Organizations and cultures: Software of the mind. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 81, 462e472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00273.x.Johnson, H. D. (2004). Gender, grade, and relationship differences in emotional closeness within adolescent friendships. Adolescence, 39, 243e235.J€oreskog, K. G., & S€orbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.50. Structural Equation Modeling, 1.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.Kins, E., & Beyers, W. (2010). Failure to launch, failure to achieve criteria for adulthood? Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 743e777. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1177/0743558410371126.Lanz, M., & Tagliabue, S. (2007). Do I really need someone in order to become an adult? Romantic relationships during emerging adulthood in Italy. Journal

of Adolescent Research, 22, 531e549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306713.Lye, D. N. (1996). Adult childeparent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 79e102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.79.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98, 224e253. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.McGue, M., Elkins, I., Walden, B., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Perceptions of the parent-adolescent relationship: a longitudinal investigation. Developmental

Psychology, 41, 971e984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.971.Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2006, August). The utility of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. In Paper presented at the

annual Academy of Management conference, Atlanta, GA.Mendonca, M., & Fonaine, A. M. (2013). Late nest leaving in Portugal: its effects on individuation and parent-child relationships. Emerging Adulthood, 1,

233e244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167696813481773.Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross-and same-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 277e295. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1177/0265407592092007.Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: from early adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 346e374.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118.Moreno, A. (2012). The transition to adulthood in Spain in a comparative perspective: the incidence of structural factors. Young, 20, 19e48. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/110330881102000102.Morgan, D. H. (1996). Family connections: An introduction to family studies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223e249. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604274174.Paikoff, R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relationships change during puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0033-2909.110.1.47.Papadopoulos, N. T. (1998). Greek family policy from a comparative perspective. In E. Drew, R. Emerek, & E. Mahon (Eds.), Women, work and the family in

europe (pp. 47e57). New York: Routledge.Papataxiarchis, E. (2012). Shaping modern times in Greek family: a comparative view of gender and kinship transformations after 1974. In A. Dialla, & N.

Maroniti (Eds.), State, society and economy (pp. 217e244). Athens: Metexmio.Paxson, H. (2004). Making modern mothers: Ethics and family planning in urban Greece. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Perrin, P. B., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Swan, L. K., Lawrence, A. W., Jr., Smith, M. B., et al. (2011). Aligning Mars and Venus: the social construction and

instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 64, 613e628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9804-4.Petrogiannis, K., & Dragonas, T. (2013). Family support and early childhood education and care in Greece. In V. Barnekow, B. B. Jensen, C. Currie, A. Dyson, N.

Eisenstadt, & E. Melhuish (Eds.), Early years: Vol. 1. Improving the lives of children and young people: Case studies from Europe (pp. 2e14). World HealthAssociation.

Prager, K. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford.Roisman, G. I., Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child

Development, 75, 123e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00658.x.Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, A. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral devel-

opment of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.Saraiva, L. M., & Matos, P. M. (2012). Separation-individuation of Portuguese emerging adults in relation to parents and to the romantic partner. Journal of

Youth Studies, 15, 499e517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.663889.Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Diversity in romantic relations of adolescents with varying health status: links to intimacy in close friendships. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 15, 611e637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558400156001.Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: evidence of a developmental sequence. In-

ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519e531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000145.Seiffge-Krenke. (2006). Leaving home or still in the nest? Parent child relationships and psychological health as predictors of different leaving home

patterns. Developmental Psychology, 42, 864e876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.864.Seiffge-Krenke, I., Shulman, S., & Klessinger, N. (2001). Adolescent precursors of romantic relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 18, 327e346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407501183002.Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Osgood, D. W., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Conflict frequency with mothers and fathers from middle childhood to late adolescence:

within- and between-families comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 43, 539e550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.539.Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 11, 449e469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113010.Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hoffman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boyfriend: age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17,

800e808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.6.800.Shulman, S., & Kipnis, O. (2001). Adolescent romantic relationships: a look from the future. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 337e351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/

jado.2001.0409.Shulman, S., Walsh, S., Weisman, O., & Schelyer, M. (2009). Romantic contexts, sexual behavior, and depressive symptoms among adolescent males and

females. Sex Roles, 61, 850e863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9691-8.Sneed, J., Johnson, J., Cohen, P., Gilligan, C., Chen, P., Crawford, T., et al. (2006). Gender differences in the age-changing relationship between instrumentality

and family contact in emerging adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42, 787e797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.787.Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parental-child distance and pubertal maturation. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122e128. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.122.Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, (NY): Norton.Tagliabue, S., & Lanz, M. (2014). Exploring social and personal relationships: the issue of measurement invariance of non-independent observations. Eu-

ropean Journal of Social Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2047. in press.Triandis, H., & Vassiliou, V. (1967). A comparative analysis of subjective culture. Technical Report No 55 (67e11).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005147708827


http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00273.x







http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558410371126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558410371126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306713

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.79

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.971



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167696813481773

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407592092007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407592092007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/110330881102000102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/110330881102000102


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604274174

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604274174

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.47

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.47








http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9804-4






http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00658.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.663889

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558400156001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000145

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.864

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407501183002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.539

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.6.800

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9691-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.787

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.122

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.122


http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2047




Tsai, K. M., Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). Continuity and discontinuity in perceptions of family relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. ChildDevelopment, 84, 471e484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01858.x.

Updegraff, K. A., Helms, H. M., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., Thayer, S. M., & Sales, L. H. (2004). Who's the boss? Patterns of perceived control in adolescents'friendships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 403e420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B: JOYO.0000037633.39422.b0.

Vlachopoulos, S. (2012). Measurement equivalence of the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire e 2 across Greek men and women exerciseparticipants. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 9, 1e17.

Weimer, B. L., Kerns, K. A., & Oldenburg, C. M. (2004). Adolescents' interactions with a best friend: associations with attachment style. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 88, 102e120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.003.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2002). The development of romantic relationships and adaptations in the system of peer relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health,

31, 216e225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00504-9.Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of

adolescence (pp. 175e204). Oxford: Blackwell.Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Petherick, J. (2006). Intimacy dating goals and relationship satisfaction during adolescence and emerging adulthood: identity

formation, age and sex as moderators. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 167e177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406063636.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01858.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B: JOYO.0000037633.39422.b0





http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.003


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00504-9




http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406063636

greek adolescents' intimate relations before their transition to adulthood

Documents

romantic relationships

relationships aregh

future relationships

peers of thsex

male peers

peers untilbuhrmester

emerging adults

attachmentto parents