2017 FinkelSimpsonEastwick AnnuRevPsych

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
t%PXOMPBEmHVSFTBT115TMJEFT
t/BWJHBUFMJOLFESFGFSFODFT
t%PXOMPBEDJUBUJPOT
t&YQMPSFSFMBUFEBSUJDMFT
The Psychology of Close
t4FBSDILFZXPSET
Relationships: Fourteen
Core Principles
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017.68:383-411. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Northwestern University on 01/05/17. For personal use only.
Eli J. Finkel,1 Jeffry A. Simpson,2

and Paul W. Eastwick3
1
Department of Psychology and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois 60208; email: finkel@northwestern.edu
2
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;
email: simps108@umn.edu
3
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California 95616;
email: eastwick@ucdavis.edu
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017. 68:383–411 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on relationship science, core principles, attachment theory, interdependence
September 1, 2016
theory, culinary approach
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at
psych.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Relationship science is a theory-rich discipline, but there have been no at-
10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038
tempts to articulate the broader themes or principles that cut across the
Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. theories themselves. We have sought to fill that void by reviewing the
All rights reserved
psychological literature on close relationships, particularly romantic rela-
tionships, to extract its core principles. This review reveals 14 principles,
which collectively address four central questions: (a) What is a relationship?
(b) How do relationships operate? (c) What tendencies do people bring to
their relationships? (d ) How does the context affect relationships? The 14
principles paint a cohesive and unified picture of romantic relationships that
reflects a strong and maturing discipline. However, the principles afford few
of the sorts of conflicting predictions that can be especially helpful in fos-
tering novel theory development. We conclude that relationship science is
likely to benefit from simultaneous pushes toward both greater integration
across theories (to reduce redundancy) and greater emphasis on the circum-
stances under which existing (or not-yet-developed) principles conflict with
one another.
383
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
MAJOR THEORIES IN RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
EXTRACTING PRINCIPLES: A CULINARY METAPHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Set 1: What Is a Relationship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Set 2: How Do Relationships Operate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Set 3: What Tendencies Do People Bring to Their Relationships? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Set 4: How Does the Context Affect Relationships? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
COMBINING THE PRINCIPLES TO REFINE OR DEVELOP THEORIES . . . . 401
Refining Existing Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Generating New Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
OPTIMIZING RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE: THEORETICAL COHESION

VERSUS CONFLICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
[R]elationships with other humans are both the foundation and the theme of the human condition:
We are born into relationships, we live our lives in relationships with others, and when we die, the
effects of our relationships survive in the lives of the living, reverberating throughout the tissue of their
relationships.
—Ellen Berscheid (1999, pp. 261–262)
INTRODUCTION
Poets, novelists, and philosophers have long recognized the centrality of relationships to human
existence. Yet the coalescence of an integrated science devoted to understanding human rela-
tionships dates back only to the 1980s. Today, relationship science is an interdisciplinary field
that employs diverse empirical methods to understand the initiation, development, maintenance,
and dissolution of interpersonal relationships. This field addresses the structure and trajectory of
relationships, how relationships operate, and how relationship outcomes are influenced by both
the personal characteristics that people bring to their relationships and the broader context in
which relationships are embedded. Relationship scientists investigate many types of relationships,
but the primary emphasis is on close relationships—those characterized by “strong, frequent,
and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time” (Kelley et al. 1983,
p. 38)—especially well-established romantic relationships.1 In her classic article on the “green-
ing of relationship science,” Berscheid (1999) discussed the growing coherence and influence of
relationship science on myriad scholarly fields, presciently forecasting the growth of a
1
Close relationships researchers investigate a wide range of relationships, even within the subcase of romantic relationships.
Although there are main effect differences across relationship types (Kurdek 2005), the available evidence suggests that “the
processes that regulate relationship functioning generalize across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples” (Kurdek 2004,
p. 880). Thus, we have no reason to believe that the 14 principles discussed below qualitatively differ across different romantic
relationship arrangements. As such, and because the vast majority of research has examined heterosexual romantic relationships,
our examples focus on the heterosexual case.
384 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

flourishing discipline in the twenty-first century (see also Campbell & Simpson 2013,
Reis 2007).
Researchers have written many reviews of the close relationships literature, including in pre-
vious volumes of the Annual Review of Psychology (e.g., Clark & Reis 1988, Gottman 1998). In
this review, we focus on the major theories that guide research in relationship science, with
a particular emphasis on those deriving from social and personality psychology. We seek to
understand what assumptions these theories share, the extent to which they align or conflict,
and how they could be augmented and complemented. Toward those ends, we attempt to ex-
tract from the literature a set of core principles for understanding close relationships and illus-
trate how articulating and organizing these core principles can promote theory refinement and
development.
MAJOR THEORIES IN RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE

Relationship science has produced many strong theories, two of which—interdependence theory
and attachment theory—have been especially influential. Interdependence theory, which began as
a game-theoretic model of dyadic interaction, traces its roots to Thibaut & Kelley’s (1959) book
The Social Psychology of Groups. This theory was first applied to close relationships in the 1970s
(Kelley 1979, Levinger & Snoek 1972) and became a dominant theory of such relationships in the
1980s (Kelley et al. 1983, Rusbult 1983). According to interdependence theory, social situations
vary along several dimensions, and this variation influences relationship processes and outcomes
(Kelley et al. 2003). For example, situations in which a man is more (versus less) dependent on his
girlfriend for rewarding experiences should increase the extent to which he monitors her behavior
for signs that she loves and is committed to him. His high level of dependence puts him in a low-
power position unless she is also highly dependent upon him. High levels of mutual dependence
typically promote cooperative behavior when partners have corresponding interests but conflictual
behavior when they have noncorrespondent interests.
Attachment theory, which initially focused on infant–caregiver relationships, traces its roots to
Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1980) trilogy on attachment, separation, and loss. The theory was adapted
to explain the nature of close relationships between adults in the 1980s (Hazan & Shaver 1987), and
it joined interdependence theory as a dominant model of adult relationships in the 1990s (Hazan
& Shaver 1994). According to attachment theory, people develop emotional bonds with significant
others (usually romantic partners in adulthood) and are motivated to maintain these bonds over
time (Mikulincer & Shaver 2007). People seek proximity to their primary attachment figure,
especially when they are stressed, ill, or afraid, and rely on the psychological security provided by
this person when pursuing challenging activities that can promote mastery and personal growth.
Individuals vary along two dimensions of attachment insecurity: (a) anxiety, the extent to which
they need reassurance that their attachment figures love and will stay with them, and (b) avoidance,
the extent to which they are uncomfortable with emotional intimacy and being vulnerable. Secure
individuals, who score low on both dimensions, typically display the most constructive relationship
processes and have the most positive relationship outcomes.
Several other theoretical perspectives have also been influential in relationship science, in-
cluding risk regulation theory (Murray et al. 2006), self-expansion theory (Aron et al. 2013), the
communal/exchange model (Clark & Mills 2011), the interpersonal process model of intimacy
(Reis & Shaver 1988), and the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury 1995).
The existence of such theories, along with many others, is a major strength of relationship science:
These theories have fruitfully guided thousands of empirical investigations into how people think,
feel, and behave in close relationships.
www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 385

Nevertheless, it is not obvious how, or whether, these theories cohere and what qualities they
have in common. Some theories overlap in intended ways. For example, risk regulation theory
(Murray et al. 2006) deliberately combines elements of attachment theory and interdependence
theory. Other theories overlap in underappreciated ways. For example, the ideal standards model
(Simpson et al. 2001) focuses on standards, whereas the suffocation model (Finkel et al. 2014a) fo-
cuses on expectations, two constructs that are almost synonymous in interdependence theory. Still
other theories discuss processes that are rarely articulated elsewhere. For example, the emphasis
in the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model on stressors external to the relationship (Karney &
Bradbury 1995) is neglected in most other theories (but see Hill 1949, McCubbin & Patterson
1983). Relationship science is fortunate to have this rich assemblage of theories, but their col-
lective depiction is murky because the degree to which the field’s core principles complement,
circumscribe, overlap with, or conflict with one another remains unclear.2
EXTRACTING PRINCIPLES: A CULINARY METAPHOR

The primary goal of this review is to articulate the principles that cut across many of the theories
in relationship science. Consider a culinary metaphor in which each theory is a dish (e.g., a curry)
composed of discrete ingredients (e.g., a grain, a protein, a vegetable, several spices). We set
ourselves the task of extracting the core principles—the basic ingredients—and determining which
principles emerge repeatedly across different theories. Our approach, in other words, involves
temporarily setting the theories aside in order to identify and organize a set of core principles that
characterize relationship science in general. Subsequently, we illustrate how theorists might use
these principles in theory refinement and novel theory development.
In general, the goal of the extraction process is not to replace current theories, nor to generate a
comprehensive list of every theoretical idea ever introduced within the relevant research domain.
Rather, the goal is to identify the key—most widespread and influential—principles that have
influenced theory development and hypothesis generation in the field. This assessment can help
determine whether and how various theories align, perhaps through redundancy or by emphasizing
different features of a phenomenon (akin to the proverbial blind men examining different parts
of an elephant). Additionally, it fills the theoretical pantry with the main ingredients required for
the theory development (cooking) process.
In applying this culinary approach to relationship science, we began by examining psycholog-
ically oriented handbook volumes, textbooks, and review articles to identify the major theories
and models within the research domain and to extract an initial list of core principles. We then
obtained feedback from 16 leading relationship scientists in psychology to refine this initial list,
ultimately producing the 14 core principles discussed below (see Table 1).
Each principle is described at a fairly high level of abstraction so that it can align with mul-
tiple theories; our goal is to capture the general thrust of how each theory characterizes a given
principle, even if there is minor variation across theories in the principle’s precise specification.
Each principle can be used to develop empirical hypotheses, but no one principle specifies how
particular constructs should be operationalized (i.e., there is no gold-standard measure required
by a particular principle). Reflecting the current state of the field, the principles exist at somewhat
2
The evolutionary psychology of human mating (Buss 2008) developed alongside mainstream relationship science. By and
large, however, these two fields have developed in parallel. They address some overlapping topics but tend to employ different
research methods and exhibit modest cross-fertilization of ideas (see Durante et al. 2016, Eastwick 2016). Toward the end
of this review (see Optimizing Relationship Science: Theoretical Cohesion Versus Conflict), we address some ways in which
relationship science could benefit from greater incorporation of ideas from evolutionary psychology.

Table 1 The 14 principles extracted from the psychology literature on relationship science
Seta Number Name Definition
1 Uniqueness Relationship outcomes depend not only on the specific qualities of each partner but also
on the unique patterns that emerge when the partners’ qualities intersect
2 Integration Opportunities and motivations for interdependence tend to facilitate cognitive, affective,
1 motivational, or behavioral merging between partners
3 Trajectory The long-term trajectories of relationship dynamics are affected by each partner’s
continually updated perceptions of the couple’s relationship-relevant interactions and
experiences
4 Evaluation People evaluate their relationships and partners according to a set of positive and negative
constructs, which tend to be moderately negatively correlated
5 Responsiveness Responsive behaviors promote relationship quality for both the self and the partner
2 6 Resolution The manner in which partners communicate about and cope with relationship events
affects long-term relationship quality and stability

7 Maintenance Partners in committed relationships exhibit cognitions and behaviors that promote the
relationship’s persistence over time, even if doing so involves self-deceptive biases
8 Predisposition People bring certain basic qualities of personality and temperament to their relationships,
some of which influence their own and their partners’ relationship wellbeing
9 Instrumentality People bring certain goals and needs to their relationships, and the dynamics between the
3 two partners affect the extent to which they succeed in achieving these goals and meeting
these needs
10 Standards People bring certain standards to their relationships and tend to experience greater
relationship wellbeing when their relationships exceed these standards
11 Diagnosticity Situations vary in the extent to which they afford opportunities to evaluate a partner’s true
goals and motives regarding the relationship
12 Alternatives The presence of attractive alternatives to a current relationship—including the option of
not being in a relationship at all—threatens relationship quality and persistence
4
13 Stress High demands external to the relationship predict worse relationship outcomes, especially
if the demands exceed the two partners’ (individual or combined) resources for coping
14 Culture Relationships are embedded in social networks and a cultural milieu—including norms,
practices, and traditions—that shape the nature and trajectory of those relationships
a
Set refers to the four major theoretical questions that the principles address: (1) What is a relationship? (2) How do relationships operate? (3) What
tendencies do people bring to their relationships? (4) How does the context affect relationships?.
different levels of analysis. Some, for example, apply to a person at a single moment in time, whereas
others apply to a person in general or across time; some imply a particular causal process (e.g.,
responsive behaviors increase relationship quality), whereas others specify only that a construct
accounts for variance in a process or outcome (e.g., culture accounts for variance in the quality
of relationship functioning).3 Consistent with the culinary metaphor, most theories incorporate
or address only some of the 14 principles, in the same way that specific dishes do not use all the
ingredients in the pantry; it is unlikely that a cogent theory could incorporate all 14 principles,
especially at this rather early stage of the field’s development.
By necessity, our extraction process involved many subjective judgments. For example, what
counts as a theory? Which theories are most relevant to relationship science? Is a given principle
3
All of the principles we discuss can be disconfirmed, though it may be easier to disconfirm principles that specify a particular
causal process than principles that specify that a construct should predict an outcome in general.

sufficiently core to warrant inclusion? Thus, we make no claim that our conclusions reflect the
absolute truth regarding the key principles that define relationship science from a psychological
perspective; other scholars might make different decisions or draw different conclusions about
the discipline’s core principles. However, the subjectivity of this approach does not render the
conclusions arbitrary. The conclusions are constrained by the theories in our research domain,
which means that all competent extraction efforts ought to generate principles that are reasonably
compatible with one another. We hope that our synthesis starts a dialogue about the core principles
that anchor relationship science and about how these principles might be used both to refine
current theories and to generate new ones.
THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE

Once we extracted the 14 principles (see Table 1), we embedded them within a sensible, albeit
post hoc, organizational structure. We settled on a four-set structure in which each set was built
around a central theoretical question in relationship science: (a) What is a relationship? (b) How
do relationships operate? (c) What tendencies do people bring to their relationships? (d ) How does
the context affect relationships? Figure 1 depicts an organizational framework for conceptualizing
the 14 principles within this four-set structure.
Set 1: What Is a Relationship?

Relationship scientists have written extensively about the definitions of terms such as close and
relationship (e.g., Berscheid & Regan 2005, Kelley et al. 1983). One pervasive concept that char-
acterizes all attempts to define close relationships is that partners are dependent on one another to
obtain good outcomes and facilitate the pursuit of their most important needs and goals (see Finkel
Set 4: How does the context affect relationships?
11. Diagnosticity 13. Stress

12. Alternatives 14. Culture
Set 1: What is a relationship?
1. Uniqueness 2. Integration 3. Trajectory
Set 3: What tendencies do people

bring to their relationships?
8. Predisposition
9. Instrumentality
10. Standards
Set 2: How do relationships operate?

4. Evaluation 6. Resolution
5. Responsiveness 7. Maintenance
Figure 1
A psychological perspective of the core principles in relationship science. Although the image depicts a
heterosexual couple, the available evidence suggests that all 14 core principles generalize to other relationship
structures, including those involving gay men or lesbians (see Footnote 1). Picture credit: Pixabay.

& Simpson 2015). Beyond these broad definitional efforts, theories have extensively explored the
nature of close relationships. Set 1 contains three core principles that address how and why a re-
lationship becomes more than the sum of its parts (the uniqueness principle), the merging of two
partners into a single psychological entity (the integration principle), and the way relationships
change over time (the trajectory principle).
Uniqueness. Relationship outcomes depend not only on the specific qualities of each partner but also on
the unique patterns that emerge when the partners’ qualities intersect.
According to relationship scientists, a relationship functions as its own entity that is distinct
from and irreducible to the two constituent partners (Berscheid 1999). For example, even if two
individuals tend to be low self-disclosers, their idiosyncratic personal characteristics may mesh in
a unique way that leads both of them to self-disclose a great deal to each other. From a statistical
standpoint, uniqueness effects are evident in the degree of relationship variance in social relations
model studies and in actor × partner interaction effects in actor–partner interdependence model
studies (Kenny & Kashy 2011).

Various theories address the uniqueness principle in distinct ways, with most emphasizing
certain characteristics of relationship partners or specific interpersonal outcomes. Interdependence
theory (Kelley et al. 2003) proposes that the qualities of each partner influence how the two partners
interact in particular situations and, consequently, the outcomes they reap from those interactions.
Transactive goal dynamics theory (Fitzsimons et al. 2015) argues that successful goal attainment
depends on features of the self (e.g., a man’s desire to lose weight) in conjunction with those of
the partner (e.g., his wife’s training as a dietician). Relational regulation theory (Lakey & Orehek
2011) posits that the extent to which social interaction successfully regulates affect, behavior, and
cognition depends on the idiosyncratic traits, preferences, and personal tastes of each partner (e.g.,
the two partners find it soothing if she plays guitar while he cooks).
There are many empirical examples of uniqueness. For example, relationship variance explains
most of the total variance in perceptions of mate value and long-term attraction, indicating that
beauty (as well as other desirable qualities of a mate) really is largely in the eye of the beholder
(Eastwick & Hunt 2014). Mutuality of commitment—the degree to which both partners report
comparable levels of commitment to the relationship—predicts unique variance in relationship
wellbeing above and beyond the two partners’ levels of commitment (Drigotas et al. 1999). Capital-
ization discussions—in which one partner attempts to savor positive news with the other (Gable &
Reis 2010)—tend to be especially difficult and unsatisfying if the person sharing the news is high
in attachment anxiety and the partner is high in attachment avoidance (Shallcross et al. 2011). De-
pressive symptoms during the transition to parenthood are particularly pronounced when highly
neurotic individuals have highly disagreeable spouses (Marshall et al. 2015). In short, relationships
cannot be understood fully by studying main effects involving the two partners; consideration of
the unique dyadic context generated by the two partners is also required.
Integration. Opportunities and motivations for interdependence tend to facilitate cognitive, affective,
motivational, or behavioral merging between partners.
In many close relationships, the psychological boundaries that separate partners are blurry,
making it difficult to discern where one partner ends and the other begins. The self component
in terms such as self-concept and self-regulation takes on a less individualistic focus. Consider
the self-concept, which is often deeply embedded in and possibly altered by close relationships
(Andersen & Chen 2002). As a relationship develops and the desire to maintain it increases, an in-
dividual’s self-concept usually becomes increasingly intertwined with the partner and relationship.
In unstructured relationship thought-listing tasks, for example, higher relationship commitment

predicts greater spontaneous use of plural pronouns such as we, us, and our (Agnew et al. 1998).
Individuals also become confused about whether they or their partner has a given attribute (e.g.,
extraversion), as illustrated by research showing that participants are slower and less accurate
when making me/not me decisions under time pressure if either they or their partner possesses
the relevant attribute than if neither or both of them do (Mashek et al. 2003). Similar effects are
also found in newly formed relationships when an individual desires high interdependence with
his or her potential partner (Slotter & Gardner 2009). Perhaps due to this merging of identities,
the tendency for individuals to exhibit self-enhancing biases generalizes to their close (but not
nonclose) relationship partners (Sedikides et al. 1998).
Self-regulation is also embedded within close relationships. According to transactive goal dy-
namics theory (Finkel et al. 2016, Fitzsimons et al. 2015), relationship partners form a single
self-regulating unit that involves a complex web of goals, pursuits, and outcomes. The optimal
unit of analysis for understanding goal dynamics is the dyad or group, not the individual. For
instance, Alice might set a goal for John, such as losing weight; she might then pursue this goal by
buying healthier snacks, or John might pursue it by forgoing desserts. Alice might also set a goal
for herself, such as submitting a work project on time, which John helps her pursue by doing some
solo parenting so she can complete her project. Depending on how efficiently partners coordinate
their goals and pursuits, goal interdependence can either bolster or undermine each person’s goal
success. When goal coordination is strong, partners can achieve a level of goal success that would
have been impossible if they were single or had a less compatible partner. In fact, research has
shown that individuals assigned to think about ways in which their romantic partner is helpful in
their pursuit of a goal work less hard at pursuing that goal (Fitzsimons & Finkel 2011), which frees
resources for other goal pursuits.
When performing joint tasks, people who desire a communal rather than an exchange relation-
ship tend to behave in ways that obscure rather than accentuate their independent contributions,
which makes overall performance function as a shared dyadic contribution rather than as a com-
bination of two independent contributions. Even at a physiological level, the line separating close
relationship partners is fuzzy (Beckes & Coan 2011, IJzerman et al. 2015, Sbarra & Hazan 2008).
Romantic partners performing laboratory interaction tasks, for example, exhibit increased align-
ment over time in their respiratory sinus arrhythmia (a biomarker of feeling safe), an effect that is
stronger among individuals who are more satisfied with their relationship (Helm et al. 2014).
Trajectory. The long-term trajectories of relationship dynamics are affected by each partner’s continually
updated perceptions of the couple’s relationship-relevant interactions and experiences.
Relationships change over time. Close relationships models from the 1960s and 1970s posited
that change reflected a normative series of stages or filters. For example, the intersection model of
pair relatedness (Levinger & Snoek 1972) proposes that relationship partners move through stages
of escalating interdependence as they become aware of each other, interact, and eventually form a
relationship characterized by a couple-level identity. The relational development model (Knapp
et al. 2014) suggests that couples move through a series of stages both when beginning a relation-
ship (e.g., initiating, then intensifying, then bonding) and when ending a relationship (e.g., differen-
tiating, then stagnating, then terminating). Shifts between stages are often marked by transitions—
turning points where partners’ levels of commitment become explicit (Loving et al. 2009) or life
events that change the relationship, such as the transition to parenthood (Rholes et al. 2011).
Other models focus on how specific relationship constructs ebb and flow across time. Accord-
ing to social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor 1973), relationship partners develop intimacy
as they gradually increase the depth and breadth of their self-disclosures. Attachment theorists
propose that the three behavioral systems associated with pair-bonding develop at different rates,

with the sexual mating system being particularly important early in a relationship and the at-
tachment and caregiving systems taking on greater importance once the relationship has become
established (Zeifman & Hazan 2008). Interdependence theorists have focused on how the situa-
tions encountered by a given couple produce relationship-specific behavioral tendencies, which
often become reified as injunctive norms (Thibaut & Kelley 1959). For example, if one partner
likes action films and the other likes screwball comedies, the couple might develop a strong turn-
taking norm, which would not exist in couples in which partners had identical film preferences.
People also update their internal working models over time (Bretherton & Munholland 2008).
Research has confirmed that events that produce feelings of greater attachment security lead to
changes in partner-specific attachment models (e.g., expectations that one’s current partner is
reliable), which subsequently change global attachment models (e.g., expectations that partners
in general are reliable) (Fraley 2007, Pierce & Lydon 2001).
Many of the events and experiences that cause relationships to change occur in simple, or-
dinary interactions and commonplace situations. Indeed, relational regulation theory (Lakey &
Orehek 2011) suggests that people’s perceptions of social support originate mainly from everyday
conversations and shared activities with partners rather than in response to major life stressors.
Consequently, relationship outcomes are challenging to predict before a relationship begins, even
if one has considerable knowledge of each partner’s personal characteristics (Finkel et al. 2012).
The ReCAST model (Eastwick et al. 2016) posits that relationships that turn out to be long-term,
committed relationships are often indistinguishable from those that turn out to be short-term and
casual in the early stages as two people get to know each other. Long-term and short-term rela-
tionships prove difficult to differentiate primarily because people do not know if they want to be in
a committed relationship with a specific person until they can fully gauge the relationship’s emo-
tional and sexual chemistry. However, relationships do not remain unpredictable forever: Once
relationship partners progress to advanced relationship stages (e.g., marriage), latent strengths
and vulnerabilities presage whether partners’ evaluations of relationship quality will remain high
or deteriorate (Lavner et al. 2012).
Set 2: How Do Relationships Operate?

Besides examining existential and temporal features of relationships, relationship scientists also
investigate how individuals think, feel, and behave with regard to their experiences and interactions
with their partners. Set 2 encompasses four core principles, which address how individuals evaluate
their partners and relationships (the evaluation principle); how partners respond to each other’s
needs (the responsiveness principle); how partners react dyadically to conflict and other important
relationship events (the resolution principle); and how partners (typically) manage to sustain their
relationship, despite challenges (the maintenance principle).
Evaluation. People evaluate their relationships and partners according to set of positive and negative
constructs, which tend to be moderately negatively correlated.
People constantly evaluate the world around them, and their relationships and partners are no
exception. Most people make relationship evaluations on separable positivity and negativity dimen-
sions (Gable & Reis 2001); researchers have used this two-dimensional conceptualization to exam-
ine the effects of ambivalence—simultaneous highly positive and highly negative evaluations—on
relationship processes and outcomes (e.g., Uchino et al. 2013).
Typically, however, individuals who evaluate a relationship more positively also evaluate it
less negatively, so most evaluative variables are bipolar and labeled according to their positive
endpoint (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, trust, etc.). Each of these constructs has its own

definition, timecourse, and measure, and various theoretical perspectives have attempted to
explain how and why these constructs are related or distinct.
According to the triangular theory of love (Sternberg 1986), for example, love has three ele-
ments, which can be present or absent to varying degrees: intimacy (warm feelings of connect-
edness), passion (romantic and sexual attraction), and commitment (the decision to maintain the
relationship). Other scholars have focused on the timecourse of passion and intimacy, finding
that passion is a function of the first derivative of intimacy over time: When intimacy is increas-
ing, passion is high; when it is stable (regardless of its level), passion is low (Rubin & Campbell
2012). These and other positive evaluative constructs are conceptually distinct, but they are often
positively correlated, sometimes quite highly. Although six of the major evaluative constructs in
relationship science—commitment, trust, love, passion, intimacy, and satisfaction—are distinct,
they share considerable variance and form a single, broad dimension reflecting overall relationship
quality (Fletcher et al. 2000a,b).
Most and perhaps all of these constructs include not only reflective/consciously accessible
components but also impulsive/automatic components (Murray et al. 2013). Using distinct mea-
surement approaches (e.g., explicit versus implicit priming), both kinds of components can be
assessed; depending on the context, either explicit or implicit measures may account for more
of the variance in predicting a given relationship process or outcome (Banse & Kowalick 2007,
McNulty et al. 2013).
Responsiveness. Responsive behaviors promote relationship quality for both the self and the partner.
Individuals’ assessments of relationship quality are strongly influenced by their interactions
with their partners, including their degree of mutual responsiveness—the extent to which they
are “cognizant of, sensitive to, and behaviorally supportive of ” each other’s core needs and values
(Reis 2007, p. 9; see also Clark & Lemay 2010, Reis & Clark 2013). Studies have confirmed that
partners’ responsive behaviors across a wide range of negative and positive experiences predict
greater personal and relationship wellbeing (Debrot et al. 2012, Gable et al. 2012), above and
beyond the positive effects of other more general forms of support (Otto et al. 2015).
This emphasis on responsiveness to the partner’s core needs and values indicates that one cannot
be responsive by simply learning a set of techniques and applying them in all situations (Finkel
et al. 2014b). Rather, responsiveness requires tailoring one’s actions to the unique needs of one’s
partner in a particular situation. Consider this classic example: Having someone immediately repay
your favor is responsive if you want an exchange relationship with him or her, but it is unresponsive
if you desire a communal relationship (Clark & Mills 1979).
When individuals believe their partner is responsive to their needs, they typically feel good
about themselves and are more willing to place themselves in emotionally vulnerable positions,
which can enhance the quality of their relationship (Murray et al. 2006). People vary, of course, in
how comfortable they are being emotionally vulnerable, an individual difference that influences
not only how responsive they are but also how they are likely to react to responsive behavior from
their partner. When in a support-provision role, insecurely attached individuals tend to provide
less responsive support when their partners are upset (Feeney & Collins 2001, Simpson et al. 1992).
When in a support-recipient role, such individuals report feeling greater insecurity and display
relationship-destructive behaviors, although receiving more responsive support tailored to their
needs buffers them from experiencing these adverse states (Lemay & Dudley 2011, Simpson &
Overall 2014). Responsiveness, in other words, plays a crucial role—frequently in conjunction
with the partners’ individual qualities—in social support contexts in which one partner helps the
other cope with negative experiences or stressors. The extent to which individuals perceive that

they have high-quality support available predicts greater wellbeing and better health outcomes
(Robles et al. 2014).
Responsiveness is also important in capitalization situations (Gable & Reis 2010) in which
responsive reactions typically involve active, constructive behaviors such as excitement or enthu-
siasm (Feeney & Collins 2015). These reactions often yield positive outcomes, such as increases
in the discloser’s positive mood or self-esteem, which in turn lead the discloser to feel closer to
the responsive partner. Conversely, passive or destructive responses such as apathy or envy signal
a lack of responsiveness and frequently elicit distancing responses from disclosers.
Resolution. The manner in which partners communicate about and cope with relationship events affects
long-term relationship quality and stability.
Certain relational events stand out, reverberating with psychological resonance for one or both
partners. These events may be commonplace, such as the fifteenth fight over chores in a month,
or infrequent, such as the birth of a child. The ways in which these events affect a relationship
often hinge on how both partners behave in response to them (Overall & McNulty 2017).
The range of these resonant events is vast, but because negative relational events have stronger
consequences for relationship wellbeing than do positive events (Gottman 1998), conflictual inter-
action tends to be especially significant. Communication often becomes fraught during conflict,
and relationship satisfaction and stability largely depend on how partners construe and respond
to each other’s behavior. In addition, the effectiveness and pace with which partners recover from
conflict episodes independently predict relationship satisfaction and stability (e.g., Gottman &
Levenson 1999).
The response options to conflict reside within a constructive/destructive × active/passive be-
havioral space (Rusbult et al. 1982; for a similar model, see Overall & McNulty 2017). Responses
within this space have downstream effects on relationship quality; active/constructive responses,
for example, tend to predict higher satisfaction and lower breakup likelihood (Rusbult et al. 1982).
Observational research has documented four conflict-relevant behavioral patterns that forecast
relationship distress and propensity to divorce: globally criticizing your partner’s personality, re-
sponding defensively to your partner’s criticism, conveying the belief that your partner is beneath
you, and refusing to engage with your partner’s concerns (Gottman 1998).
Major relationship problems must sometimes be directly addressed to resolve persistent,
nagging issues that, if left unattended, could further destabilize the relationship. For example,
compared to partners who are more passive or destructive, partners who directly and openly
confront major problems in active, constructive ways experience greater distress during and im-
mediately following conflict discussions, but they and their partners are more likely to resolve
these problems and have happier relationships over time (Overall et al. 2009). It appears that
direct opposition is beneficial when serious problems must be addressed and when partners can
make changes, but it is often harmful when partners do not have the traits or skills to be ade-
quately responsive to one another (Overall & McNulty 2017). Indirect (i.e., passive) cooperative
communication, on the other hand, appears to be harmful when major problems must be resolved
but can be beneficial when (a) problems are minor, (b) things cannot be changed, or (c) one or
both partners are too defensive to resolve the problem effectively.
Forgiveness research has revealed that the ways in which both partners behave and react follow-
ing major interpersonal transgressions alter how resolution unfolds. If, for example, transgressors
make stronger amends and victims forgive them more wholeheartedly following a major rela-
tionship transgression, victims tend to develop greater self-respect and clearer self-views (Luchies
et al. 2010), which should result in better and more constructive interactions later on. Indeed,
the expression of greater forgiveness by the victim predicts more constructive patterns of marital

conflict resolution and greater long-term relationship stability across time (Fincham et al. 2004).
If, however, transgressors fail to make adequate amends or are verbally aggressive, victims who
are highly (versus modestly) forgiving tend to respect themselves less and feel less satisfied in the
marriage (Luchies et al. 2010, McNulty 2008).
Maintenance. Partners in committed relationships exhibit cognitions and behaviors that promote the
relationship’s persistence over time, even if doing so involves self-deceptive biases.
Forgiveness is one of many processes that protect and promote relationships over time; these
processes are collectively called relationship maintenance mechanisms. Many of these mechanisms
involve a transformation process in which partners override their immediate self-interests in favor
of behaviors that are more beneficial to the partner or the relationship (Kelley & Thibaut 1978).
One of the most robust predictors of the tendency to enact relationship maintenance mechanisms
is relationship commitment, which emerges from feelings of satisfaction and investment in the
relationship and from the belief that the alternatives to involvement in the relationship are less
desirable (Le & Agnew 2003). Greater relationship commitment, in turn, is associated with en-
acting relationship-maintaining cognitions and behaviors, such as perceiving one’s relationship
as better than others’ (including in the sexual arena; see de Jong & Reis 2015), ignoring or men-
tally derogating romantic alternatives, making sacrifices to benefit the relationship, and forgiving
partner transgressions (Rusbult et al. 2001).
Some of the relationship-promoting effects of commitment stem from motivated biases. For
example, the positive association of commitment with perceptions that one’s relationship is better
than others’ relationships is stronger when one’s relationship is threatened (Rusbult et al. 2000).
The negative association of commitment with the assessment of romantic alternatives as desirable
is stronger when alternatives are objectively more appealing; in fact, the negative association
disappears when alternatives are objectively unappealing, presumably because they do not threaten
the relationship and do not require derogation ( Johnson & Rusbult 1989, Simpson et al. 1990).
Similarly, although romantically unattached men tend to find a novel woman more desirable when
she is at the most fertile stage of her ovulatory cycle, men who are involved in a committed romantic
relationship show the opposite pattern (Miller & Maner 2010). That is, men in relationships
actually find a woman other than their partner less attractive when she is highly fertile, presumably
because she is especially tempting and threatening to their existing relationship and they are
therefore motivated to perceive her negatively.
When engaged in relationship maintenance activities, one partner’s commitment becomes
more closely tied to the other’s trust (Wieselquist et al. 1999). It is, after all, fairly easy to trust
someone who forgives your transgressions and derogates attractive alternatives. Trust, in turn,
is associated with less monitoring of the partner’s behavior as the trusting individual develops
more faith that the partner has his or her best interests at heart (Holmes & Rempel 1989). Indeed,
individuals who place greater trust in their partners exhibit relationship-promoting biases in which
they misremember their partner’s relationship transgressions as being more benign than they
actually were (Luchies et al. 2013).
Relationship scientists have also drawn from other theoretical frameworks to identify rela-
tionship maintenance mechanisms. For example, research has shown that positive illusions about
the partner predict salutary relationship outcomes over time (Murray et al. 2011), and making
more generous attributions about the causes of a partner’s behavior predicts higher relationship
satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham 1990). Of course, reality does act as a constraint on an individ-
ual’s rose-colored glasses (Fletcher & Kerr 2010, West & Kenny 2011), and biases may be more
or less pronounced depending on the specific features of a situation. For example, the strength of
a person’s positive biases is more pronounced when he or she is pursuing important relationship

goals rather than deliberating about which goals to pursue (Gagné & Lydon 2004). Relationship-
promoting effects are also found when partners engage in novel and arousing (rather than merely
pleasant) activities with each other (Aron et al. 2000) and when they adopt the perspective of a
neutral, benevolent third party when thinking about relationship conflict (Finkel et al. 2013).
Set 3: What Tendencies Do People Bring to Their Relationships?

Thus far, our discussion has focused predominantly on relationship functioning. We have largely
sidestepped both the normative or idiosyncratic tendencies that individuals bring to their relation-
ships (Set 3) and the contextual factors that might influence relationship processes (Set 4). Set 3
contains three core principles that address how and why relationship functioning is influenced
by the partners’ personality qualities (the predisposition principle), their needs and goals (the in-
strumentality principle), and the benchmarks they use to evaluate the relationship (the standards
principle).
Predisposition. People bring certain basic qualities of personality and temperament to their relationships,
some of which influence their own and their partners’ relationship wellbeing.
The most basic tendencies that people bring to their relationships are tied to their personality
and temperament. The effects of personal strengths (e.g., high self-esteem, attachment security,
approach goals) or vulnerabilities (e.g., neuroticism, rejection sensitivity, avoidance goals) can be
amplified by events that transpire within relationships or in the wider environment. For exam-
ple, John, who has low self-esteem and adopts avoidance goals in his relationship (e.g., avoiding
conflict), may not worry much about the status of his relationship with Alice if they are getting
along well and everything is fine at work. However, when either the relationship or work generates
stress, his personal vulnerabilities may rise to the fore and make him think, feel, and behave in
relationship-damaging ways, which adversely affect Alice and their later interactions (Gable &
Impett 2012, Murray et al. 2006).
Several relationship theories are relevant to the predisposition principle. Attachment theory
(Bowlby 1973), for instance, proposes that the ways in which an individual is treated by significant
others (attachment figures) across the course of his or her life—and especially during childhood—
produce internal working models of the self and others, which then guide how he or she thinks,
feels, and behaves in later interpersonal contexts, particularly stressful ones. Securely attached
individuals, who have received nurturing and sensitive care, develop positive models of the self and
others and, therefore, behave more positively and constructively toward their partners (Mikulincer
& Shaver 2007), especially when one or both of them are upset (Collins & Feeney 2004, Simpson
et al. 1992). Anxiously attached individuals, who have received unpredictable or inconsistent care,
develop negative models of the self (viewing themselves as unworthy of love), which motivates
them to be hypervigilant to signs that their partner might be pulling away. Avoidantly attached
individuals, who have been rebuffed or rejected, develop negative models of others (viewing others
as uncaring), which motivates them to keep their attachment systems deactivated by being self-
reliant, especially in stressful situations (Simpson & Rholes 2012).
The predisposition principle is prominent in other theories and bodies of research, as well.
For example, according to evolutionary models of social development (reviewed in Simpson &
Belsky 2016), stressful circumstances (e.g., early unpredictable environments) result in poorer
parenting, which creates enduring vulnerabilities (e.g., attachment insecurity) that eventually affect
the quality and stability of an individual’s romantic relationships years later (Szepsenwol et al.
2016). According to the communal/exchange model (Clark & Mills 2011), people who bring
greater communal strength to a relationship typically provide benefits to their partners that are

costly to themselves. According to the intimacy process model (Reis & Shaver 1988), the degree to
which an individual discloses important personal information to his or her partner—and how the
partner then perceives this information and reacts to it—is shaped by the unique motives, needs,
goals, and fears (the working models) that each partner brings to the relationship (Laurenceau et al.
1998). Certain personality traits—especially neuroticism, which develops early in life—predict a
host of negative relationship outcomes later in life (McNulty 2013).
Instrumentality. People bring certain goals and needs to their relationships, and the dynamics between
the two partners affect the extent to which they succeed in achieving these goals and meeting these needs.
Beyond personality differences, people also bring many needs and goals to relationships. Some
of these motivational elements are species typical. Attachment theory, for example, contends that
humans have an innate need to develop attachment bonds (Bowlby 1969), whereas self-expansion
theory suggests that humans have an innate need to expand the self (Aron et al. 2013). Applications
of self-determination theory in the domain of relationships indicate that people look to their sig-
nificant others to help them achieve their innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness (La Guardia et al. 2000). Other goals, such as the desire to reduce carbohydrate
consumption, are more idiosyncratic. Relationship scientists investigate the ways in which
relationships influence how much individuals are able to fulfill these needs and achieve their goals.
One foundational need relevant to the formation and maintenance of close relationships is
attachment, the need to establish an emotionally close relationship that fosters feelings of secu-
rity (Baumeister & Leary 1995, Bowlby 1969). Attachment theory’s central idea is that human
adults (in contrast to adults of our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos) evolved to
form deep, long-term emotional attachments with other adults, presumably because such bonds
promoted survival of our species’ altricial infants ancestrally (Eastwick 2009, Finkel & Eastwick
2015, Fletcher et al. 2015). Human adults also seek out their primary attachment figures (e.g.,
romantic partners) for subsidiary attachment-related needs, such as comfort when they are upset
or strength when pursuing challenging goals (Feeney & Collins 2015). Brain imaging research
reveals that people subjected to physical pain exhibit stronger reductions in the activation of neural
systems supporting emotional and behavioral threat responses when they are randomly assigned
to hold their spouse’s hand, especially if they have a higher-quality marriage (Coan et al. 2006).
Other studies demonstrate that merely viewing a photo of one’s romantic partner when enduring
physical pain activates brain regions linked to safety signaling, especially among those who believe
their partner is highly supportive (Eisenberger et al. 2011).
Close others influence an individual’s goal pursuit processes in diverse ways. For example, when
the opportunity arises, people tend to outsource their goal-related activities to their significant
others, which may reduce the effort they exert when pursuing their goals (Fitzsimons & Finkel
2011), and they draw closer to those who help them achieve their high-priority goals (Fitzsimons &
Shah 2008). As noted in the section Integration, above, the degree to which goal interdependence
bolsters or undermines an individual’s goal success is partially determined by how effectively
partners can coordinate, such as by pooling and efficiently allocating their goal-relevant resources
across the many goals that both partners possess (Fitzsimons et al. 2015). When things go well,
partners not only achieve better goal-related outcomes on a daily basis but also move toward their
ideal selves across time (Rusbult et al. 2009).
Close others also play a major role in existential outcomes. Perhaps the most remarkable
evidence of this is that both marital status (married versus single) and marital quality (higher
versus lower) predict lower morbidity and mortality rates (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010, Robles et al.
2014).

Standards. People bring certain standards to their relationships and tend to experience greater relationship
wellbeing when their relationships exceed these standards.
A third tendency that people bring to relationships is their personal standards, a construct that
assumes a prominent role in many relationship theories. Thibaut & Kelley (1959) express this
idea in their concept of comparison level (CL), which refers to individuals’ overall assessments of
the outcomes they believe they deserve in a particular relationship. According to interdependence
theory (Kelley & Thibaut 1978, Thibaut & Kelley 1959) and its offshoots (Rusbult 1983), people
are more satisfied with a relationship when the outcomes (rewards minus costs) it provides exceed
their CL.
Many domain-specific relationship theories also focus on standards or on similar concepts, such
as expectations, ideals, or preferences. For example, the triangular theory of love posits that greater
relationship quality is indexed by smaller discrepancies between an individual’s ideal level of each
component of love (intimacy, passion, commitment) and the actual amount of love that he or
she experiences in each component (Sternberg 1986). The ideal standards model (Simpson et al.
2001) claims that individuals should experience higher relationship quality when they perceive
greater alignment between their ideals for particular traits in a romantic partner (warmth/loyalty,
vitality/attractiveness, and status/resources) and their partner’s actual traits. The suffocation model
(Finkel et al. 2014a,b) suggests that people have varied historically in the degree to which they
expect their spouses to fulfill needs that are low (e.g., safety) versus high (e.g., self-actualization)
in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; the extent to which their relationships meet these expectations is
theorized to predict marital quality more strongly for higher-level than lower-level needs.
High standards bode poorly for relationship wellbeing when they are unattainable (McNulty
2016a,b); people tend to be less happy when their actual partners and relationships do not fulfill
their lofty standards. Conversely, high standards bode well for relationship wellbeing when such
standards motivate individuals to engage in behaviors that improve relationship outcomes, such
as when molding a less-than-ideal partner into an ideal one (Murray et al. 1996). Although high
standards often motivate prorelationship cognitions and behaviors in people who have strong
relationship skills, they also produce disappointment in those with poor relationship skills
(McNulty & Karney 2004).
People sometimes deviate from strict veridicality when comparing their standards with reality.
For example, people who are in a relationship characterized by aggression but nonetheless remain
committed to the relationship adopt more tolerant standards for partner aggression (Arriaga et al.
2016). In addition, an individual’s ideal partner preferences change over time to match the desirable
qualities possessed by his or her current partner (Fletcher et al. 2000a,b; Neff & Karney 2003).
People also have difficulty comparing, on a trait-by-trait basis, the concrete features of a flesh-
and-blood partner with their abstract standards. Consequently, the match between ideals and a
partner’s traits is typically irrelevant to relationship outcomes if ideals are measured on single traits
(e.g., attractiveness) isolated from the partner’s complete suite of traits (Eastwick et al. 2014a,b).
Set 4: How Does the Context Affect Relationships?

Consistent with classic person × situation models (e.g., Lewin 1936), the close relationships liter-
ature complements its analysis of the tendencies that people bring to their relationships with an
analysis of the situational and contextual factors that influence relationship processes and outcomes
(McNulty 2016a,b). Set 4 includes four core principles, which range from the micro to the macro
level of analysis. These principles address how and why partners navigate situations in which their
interests diverge (the diagnosticity principle), how they respond to appealing alternatives (the

alternatives principle), how stressors affect relationship dynamics (the stress principle), and how
the broader social network and culture influence relationship dynamics (the culture principle).
Diagnosticity. Situations vary in the extent to which they afford opportunities to evaluate a partner’s
true goals and motives regarding the relationship.
Some situations provide better opportunities than others for revealing a partner’s relationship-
relevant goals and motives. For example, an individual’s behavior in noncorrespondent situations
such as strain tests—in which a good outcome for one partner produces a bad outcome for the other
partner—can reveal his or her relationship goals, motives, and orientations more clearly than does
his or her behavior in correspondent situations (Holmes 1981, 2002; Kelley & Thibaut 1978). If
John agrees to quit his dream job and leave his friends and family so Alice can pursue her dream job
in a faraway city, his willingness to make these sacrifices reveals how much he cares about her and is
committed to their relationship. Alice’s ability to make relatively unambiguous attributions about
John’s motives would have been diminished if the situation were more correspondent, as would
be the case if he disliked his current job and did not have close social ties where they were living.
Because highly noncorrespondent situations allow individuals to demonstrate their willingness to
make significant sacrifices for their partner and relationship, such prorelationship behavior from
one partner tends to promote the other partner’s trust (Shallcross & Simpson 2012, Wieselquist
et al. 1999), among other relationship benefits (Simpson 2007).
Diagnostic situations are central to several theories in relationship science. According to inter-
dependence theory (Holmes 1981, 2002; Rusbult & Van Lange 2003), when relationship partners
find themselves in noncorrespondent situations such as strain tests, the partner being asked to
make a sacrifice must try to set aside his or her personal desires and transform his or her moti-
vation to do what is best for the partner and relationship. He or she must then coordinate plans
and actions with his or her partner to help achieve the partner’s important goals. This explains
why strain tests in particular are such powerfully diagnostic situations: They leave little attribu-
tional ambiguity regarding the extent and nature of the sacrificing partner’s transformation of
motivation. But if partners fail strain tests because they do not engage in prorelationship trans-
formation of motivation, relationships run the risk of becoming unstable (Rusbult et al. 2001).
Diagnosticity is also a key element of both the risk regulation model (Murray et al. 2006) and
the mutual responsiveness model (Murray & Holmes 2009). Individuals are typically motivated
to connect emotionally with their partners while protecting the self from excessive vulnerability.
Compared to correspondent situations, noncorrespondent situations highlight the fundamental
conflict between (a) seeking connection and allowing the self to be vulnerable and (b) protecting
the self and avoiding potential rejection. This is a basic conflict that both partners must struggle
to resolve because relationships cannot fully develop unless the two of them are willing to take
leaps of faith (Murray et al. 2006) and reciprocally disclose intimate information (Reis & Shaver
1988), actions that make them vulnerable to possible exploitation (Cavallo et al. 2009).
Alternatives. The presence of attractive alternatives to a current relationship—including the option of

not being in a relationship at all—threatens relationship quality and persistence.
The existence and extent of options that make it desirable for an individual to leave an existing
relationship play a vital role in interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut 1978, Thibaut & Kelley
1959) and the investment model (Rusbult 1983). Specifically, the comparison level for alternatives
(CLAlt ) concept reflects the outcomes that individuals would experience in their best alternative to
being in the current relationship, including being single. Interdependence theorists hypothesize
that relationship stability is more closely aligned with CLAlt (the extent to which a person can

achieve better outcomes in another relationship) than with CL (the extent to which a person’s
current relationship outcomes exceed his or her standards). That is, CLAlt determines the extent
to which a person is dependent on his or her partner to achieve his or her needs, goals, and other
desirable outcomes.
Most CLAlt studies have emphasized individuals’ subjective (rather than objective) perceptions
of the degree to which current alternatives are appealing. Research has shown, for example, that
the better people perceive their alternatives to be, the more likely their relationships are to dissolve
(Le et al. 2010). Research has also tested this association using experimental manipulations: When
participants are randomly assigned to believe that their own sex is in the numerical minority (versus
majority), they report lower relationship quality with their current partners, presumably because
the abundance of opposite-sex people suggests that better options may be available (Kim 2013).
Most relationship models characterize desirable alternatives as threats that individuals should
be motivated to ignore, downplay, or derogate to mitigate negative effects on their relationships
(Durante et al. 2016, Lydon & Karremans 2015). This process is evident in controlled, conscious
responses to attractive alternatives, such as the explicit evaluation of the desirability of opposite-sex
alternative partners ( Johnson & Rusbult 1989, Simpson et al. 1990). However, it is also evident
in automatic, spontaneous responses, such as the amount of time individuals spend looking at
attractive alternatives (Maner et al. 2009, Miller 1997) or displaying affiliative nonverbal behaviors
in response to them (Karremans & Verwijmeren 2008).
Some theoretical analyses linked to these findings adopt an evolutionary perspective. Pair-
bonds most likely evolved in humans because such relationships offer adaptive benefits for offspring
(Eastwick 2009). However, it takes considerable time and energy to cultivate a strong pair-bond,
which suggests that the derogation process may be an evolved adaptation that motivates commit-
ted romantic partners to train their attention on each other to preserve the existing pair-bonded
relationship (Maner et al. 2008). The process of derogating desirable alternatives is also consis-
tent with cognitive dissonance perspectives: Once people have made a difficult-to-reverse choice
(e.g., committing to a partner), they become motivated to perceive nonchosen alternatives as less
desirable (Brehm 1956).
However, in some cases, people can sustain committed relationships while also pursuing sexual,
even loving, relationships with other partners, as in the case of polyamory, a relationship structure
in which individuals have “consensual loving and romantic relationships with more than one
partner” (Conley et al. 2012, p. 126). In fact, polyamorous relationships may be stable precisely
because people do not construe their additional sexual partners as true alternatives that would
replace a current partner.
Stress. High demands external to the relationship predict worse relationship outcomes, especially if the
demands exceed the two partners’ (individual or combined) resources for coping.
Beyond the immediate situation and romantic alternatives, external factors, especially stressors,
can also affect relationship functioning. It is difficult to sustain a high-quality relationship when
confronting acute or chronic stress external to the relationship (Karney & Bradbury 1995). A
broad spectrum of stressors—including job loss, financial strain, incarceration, chronic illness,
infertility, and natural disasters—predicts myriad adverse relationship outcomes, including low
satisfaction and breakup (Karney & Neff 2015, Randall & Bodenmann 2009).
Research has shown that some couples manage stress better than others. One major factor
in explaining this variation is the level of coping-relevant resources (Hill 1949, McCubbin &
Patterson 1983). According to stress buffering perspectives (Cohen & Wills 1985), the adverse
effects of stressors are especially strong if such resources are low, as is the case when the couple lacks

sufficient money or when one or both partners feel psychologically depleted due to work-related
stress. However, among couples who have good problem-solving skills, navigating moderate levels
of stress early on strengthens the relationship over time, as long as they responded to those stressors
effectively (Neff & Broady 2011).
The most influential framework for conceptualizing the impact of stress on relationship func-
tioning is Karney & Bradbury’s (1995) vulnerability-stress-adaptation model, which emphasizes
the role of interpersonal processes in mediating the effects of stress and resources on relationship
outcomes. According to this model, stress exerts its adverse influence on relationship processes
and outcomes via two routes (Karney & Neff 2015). First, stress alters how much time partners
have for each other and how they use that time. Partners who encounter high levels of stress
have less time to engage in tasks that might increase emotional or physical intimacy, and they use
more of their winnowed time dealing with stressful, challenging situations (Neff & Karney 2009).
Second, stress depletes the self-regulatory resources that partners need to respond constructively
to relationship challenges (Repetti 1989). Partners whose self-regulatory resources have been de-
pleted are especially prone to retaliation in response to provocation (Finkel et al. 2009), and the
subjective experience of self-regulatory depletion mediates the association of stress with both neg-
ative marital behaviors and diminished marital satisfaction (Buck & Neff 2012). These effects are
particularly strong when individuals are tempted to lash out at their partners but are smaller or
nonexistent in the absence of such temptation (Finkel et al. 2012).
Culture. Relationships are embedded in social networks and a cultural milieu—including norms, practices,
and traditions—that shape the nature and trajectory of those relationships.
As we broaden the contextual lens to consider cultural and subcultural effects on relationships,
we turn to social ecological models, which posit that environmental contexts have nested layers
(e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1986). More specifically, individuals live within social networks of friends
and family whose approval or disapproval of a given relationship might affect its trajectory. These
social networks are themselves embedded in cultural contexts consisting of norms, values, and
scripts, and relationships are also shaped by these socially shared constructs. Finally, cultures are
embedded in national and historical contexts that can cause relationships to differ across time and
place.
At the level of the social network, approval from friends and family members predicts greater
relationship satisfaction and stability (Felmlee 2001). In some cases, friends and family members
may engage in specific behaviors that help a relationship flourish or flounder; in other cases, simply
hearing a loved one’s positive reaction about one’s current partner can reduce uncertainty and
increase the likelihood of investing more in the relationship (Sprecher 2011).
People also share knowledge about sexual scripts and norms within the local culture, which sub-
sequently guide behavior (Simon & Gagnon 2003). Fraternity membership, for example, predicts
the extent to which sexual activity is part of the script that undergraduates use when describing
a typical date (Bartoli & Clark 2006), and norms about appropriate sexual behaviors vary as a
function of regional levels of education and religiosity (Laumann et al. 1994).
Finally, relationships can be influenced by the national and historical context. For example,
the degree to which individuals are willing to engage in casual sexual activity is linked to national
indicators such as the rate of infectious diseases and women’s economic power (Schaller & Murray
2008, Schmitt et al. 2005). People in the United States expect their marriage to help them fulfill
certain needs, but these needs have varied over time; Americans were especially likely to prioritize
needs like safety and food production circa 1800, needs like intimacy and sexual fulfillment circa
1900, and needs like self-discovery and self-expression circa 2000 (Finkel et al. 2014a). The rise of

the postindustrial economy in Western cultures during the second half of the twentieth century
facilitated a “grand gender convergence” (although certainly not an equalization) in men’s and
women’s social roles (Goldin 2014), which profoundly influenced relationship dynamics, especially
in marriages (Finkel et al. 2014a).
Evolutionary models of culture connect these different context levels to specific psychological
processes. Transmitted cultural models, for instance, explore how and why people share beliefs,
practices, and knowledge, usually emphasizing the processes of adopting, changing, and improving
these products of shared culture (Richerson & Boyd 2005). As an example, college administrators
frequently hold workshops that increase students’ sensitivity to issues surrounding sexual consent
and that change how the students engage in sexual behavior. Evoked cultural models posit that
encountering a particular environmental cue that was prevalent in our ancestral past, such as the
presence versus absence of a responsive caregiver (Simpson & Belsky 2016), triggers adaptive
cognitive and behavioral responses. For example, environments containing more pathogens may
trigger preferences for romantic partners who carry genes associated with better health (Gangestad
et al. 2006). These two forms of culture may influence psychological functioning in tandem or
independently (Eastwick 2013).
COMBINING THE PRINCIPLES TO REFINE OR DEVELOP THEORIES

Scholars can use these 14 core principles from the psychological literature on relationships (see
Figure 1 and Table 1) to clarify and refine existing theories and perhaps generate new ones.
Using the metaphoric terminology of the culinary approach, the cook (the theorist) can canvas
the pantry (the collection of principles) for particular ingredients (specific principles), prepare the
recipe (select and arrange the ingredients), and then cook the dish (develop the theory).
Refining Existing Theories

To refine an existing theory, theorists might first map each of the 14 principles onto a theory,
retaining the principles that overlap or fit with this theory and setting aside those that do not.
Theorists can then determine whether the addition of one or more of the extra principles—those
that were not part of the original theory—might broaden the explanatory power of the theory
enough to offset the additional complexity that comes with including more principles.
We illustrate this process using transactive goal dynamics theory (Finkel et al. 2016, Fitzsi-
mons et al. 2015). We focus on this theory because we are familiar with it and because it was
developed within the past few years, which means that there are few published articulations of the
core principles. Transactive goal dynamics theory contains elements of integration (Principle 2),
evaluation (Principle 4), responsiveness (Principle 5), predisposition (Principle 8), instrumentality
(Principle 9), and alternatives (Principle 12). Specifically, it proposes that: (a) relationship part-
ners form a shared system of goal pursuits (integration), (b) subjective assessments of relationship
commitment predict increased merging (evaluation), (c) goal success is maximized when partners
support each other in ways tailored to each partner’s idiosyncratic goals and needs (responsive-
ness), (d ) each partner has certain skills and preferences that can be leveraged for optimal goal
functioning at the dyadic level (predisposition), (e) partners influence each other’s degree of goal
success (instrumentality), and ( f ) the relationship is more likely to continue if it results in goal
success that exceeds what the two partners would otherwise experience (alternatives). In short,
we can formulate much of the content of transactive goal dynamics theory with just these six
ingredients.

As with most theories, transactive goal dynamics theory also contains important elements that
do not rise to the level of a core principle. For example, one tenet of the theory is that stronger
goal interdependence in a relationship should predict poorer goal-related recovery following a
breakup. Such idiosyncratic elements are crucial in defining the unique terrain that a given theory
seeks to address.
Transactive goal dynamics theory, however, leaves eight core principles unused. Thus, a scholar
seeking to refine or expand the theory might consider whether adding any additional principles
might benefit or improve the theory enough to offset the complexity of doing so, or whether
incorporating additional principles might generate novel hypotheses. For example, transactive
goal dynamics theory is not a theory of goal content; it primarily takes the two partners’ goals
as a given rather than investigating how or why they adopted these particular goals. By adding
the perspective of culture (Principle 14), a theorist might wonder whether the goal contents that
people bring to their relationships—for example, the desired level or type of interdependence
in the relationship—differ in important ways across cultural or historical contexts and whether
such variation has implications for relationship quality and longevity. This analysis might lead to
the novel hypothesis that emotional responsiveness is more important for such outcomes in the
twenty-first century United States than in Jane Austen’s England (Light & Fitzsimons 2014).
Generating New Theories

Other scholars might want to use the principles not to refine or expand an existing theory but
to guide theory development in a bottom-up manner. Although this process can begin in various
ways (e.g., one might start with observations about relationship dynamics in the surrounding
world), it is likely to entail a systematic consideration of whether each of the principles can inform
thinking, which would lead to the generation of new insights and hypotheses. For example, a
scholar might wish to develop a new theoretical perspective on the circumstances under which
sexual intercourse draws partners closer together versus pushes them apart. Merely looking at the
list of core principles will not yield a new theoretical perspective, but it might be a productive
first step. A scholar can consider whether each principle is likely to yield a deeper, better, or
more nuanced understanding of a topic and can then explore how the most relevant principles
interrelate in theoretically interesting ways. To facilitate this process, he or she might generate
a path diagram that specifies precisely how the variables should interrelate, including processes
such as mediation, moderation, and feedback loops. Because the principles are cast at a relatively
high level of abstraction, they can be exported readily to different research domains. For example,
the researcher might find it easier to apply two or three principles—rather than an entire theory
of relationships—to an existing evolutionary perspective on how sex affects relationship partners.
OPTIMIZING RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE: THEORETICAL COHESION

VERSUS CONFLICT
What has this exercise taught us? Among other things, we have learned that there are few instances
in which a notable principle used in one theory clearly conflicts with a notable principle used in
another.4 Many relationship scientists recall interdependence theorists whispering the objection
4
One reason for this cohesion may be the abstract nature of the 14 principles. When different theories operationalize, test, and
combine constructs associated with specific principles in novel ways, they may generate different or competing predictions. For
example, although scholars agree that the principle of standards (Principle 10) matters, there is debate about the circumstances
under which standards influence relationship outcomes (Eastwick et al. 2014a,b; Schmitt 2014). There could also be conflict

that attachment theory is too focused on individual differences. However, as attachment theory
complemented research on individual differences with research on normative attachment processes
(Mikulincer & Shaver 2007), the whispers dissipated. Many currently prominent relationship
models derive specific hypotheses on the basis of ideas borrowed from different theories. When
developing the risk regulation model, for example, Murray and colleagues (2006) extracted several
key features of interdependence theory and attachment theory, combined them in novel ways,
and added new theoretical components to generate an important process model that tied together
several major ideas in the field.
In many ways, such strong theoretical cohesion is marvelous. Although relationship scientists
have many theories and models that address distinct relationship processes, we appear to have
something approximating a consensual theoretical paradigm. This paradigm, which encompasses
the 14 principles reviewed above, is compelling and generative. Recent edited volumes (e.g.,
Simpson & Campbell 2013) and journal special issues (e.g., Finkel & Simpson 2015) indicate that
relationship science is thriving.
However, there are also downsides to having such a cohesive discipline. Science often benefits
from competition between conflicting ideas. Although it is pleasant to work in an environment
characterized by consensus, it sometimes takes friction to generate forward motion. We believe
that the current theoretical paradigms in relationship science are excellent, but the field might
benefit from some theoretical conflicts—alternative accounts that might sharpen and hone one
another. For example, our field could explore whether the dominant view that people are best
served by being in a secure relationship with a romantic partner is misguided, at least under
some circumstances, such as when close friends provide a better option (DePaulo & Morris
2005). We could also reexamine the widespread, albeit implicit, assumption that relationship
stability is a good outcome (with abusive relationships being one exception) and breakups are a
bad outcome. Perhaps we could challenge this dominant view by examining the circumstances
under which people are best served by leaving their relationship or seeking to trade up for a
partner who is more compatible. Revisiting broad questions and assumptions such as these ac-
centuates the fact that many relationship scientists have focused quite heavily on the life cycle of
one relationship rather than the multiple relationships that many people develop throughout their
lives.
Evolutionary psychology, for example, potentially poses some serious challenges to certain
theories and models in relationship science, particularly in the realm of mate selection. The evo-
lutionary psychology of human mating adopts foundational assumptions that differ from many
of those in relationship science (Durante et al. 2016, Eastwick 2016). In particular, evolution-
ary perspectives highlight not only the adaptive value of strong pair-bonds but also the potential
adaptive value of behaviors such as sexual infidelity, trading up, and stalking (Buss & Shackelford
1997). If a scholar extracted the core principles in the evolutionary psychological literature on
mating, one of these principles might be that people evolved to seek opportunistic copulations
outside of long-term, committed relationships. The hypotheses that follow from this principle
seem to fundamentally conflict with hypotheses that follow from the maintenance principle dis-
cussed above (Durante et al. 2016). If ancestral humans enjoyed a survival advantage from such
relationship-destructive behaviors, how can relationship scientists reconcile this with the field’s
strong emphasis on the benefits—including the survival benefits—of exclusive romantic relation-
ships (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010, Robles et al. 2014)? And if humans are best served by having
at the level of abstraction of the 14 principles, but our extensive literature review unearthed minimal evidence of any such
conflict within relationship science.

accurate insights about their partner’s romantic attraction to others so that they can guard against
mate poaching, why do they shield themselves from the truth precisely in those circumstances
when the threat of one’s partner’s extrarelationship temptation is strongest ( Johnson & Rusbult
1989, Simpson et al. 1995)?
By posing these and other questions, evolutionary psychology directly challenges some of
the foundational assumptions and principles in relationship science. If those assumptions and
principles withstand the challenge, the current relationship science paradigm will be solidi-
fied. If they do not, it will need to be altered. Regardless of the outcome, our discipline will
benefit.
CONCLUSION
Relationship science has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. It has become a rich
discipline characterized by strong theories and highly generative research paradigms. According to
our analysis, the field has 14 core principles that address what a relationship is, how relationships
operate, what tendencies people bring to their relationships, and how contextual factors affect
relationship processes and outcomes. At present, the major theories in our field largely align and
rarely conflict.
As we look to the future, it will be interesting to see whether various theories gradually merge
into a single, unified theory of relationships or whether some major disagreements will enter
mainstream relationship science. As the field continues to mature, it is likely to benefit from
simultaneous trends toward greater theoretical unification on the one hand and greater theoretical
disagreement on the other. Such trends should refine, deepen, and extend our understanding of
how and why relationships function as they do in daily life, potentially providing clinicians and
policymakers with more effective tools for helping people achieve deeper and more fulfilling
relationships.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. This review presents the first attempt to discern the core principles that cut across the
major theories in relationship science, especially the theories within psychology.
2. This review of the major theories used a novel procedure called the culinary approach,
which seeks to extract the core principles (the basic theoretical building blocks or ingre-
dients) from a given discipline and address how theorists can use them to refine existing
theories or develop new theories.
3. Applying the extraction process to relationship science revealed 14 core principles, which
help to answer four basic questions in the literature: (a) What is a relationship? (b) How
do relationships operate? (c) What tendencies do people bring to their relationships?
(d ) How does the context affect relationships?
4. The literature review revealed a cohesive discipline with few notable conflicts among the
core theoretical principles.
5. We suggest that relationship science would benefit from both (a) greater recognition of
the principle-level overlap or redundancy across theories and (b) greater effort to adopt
novel perspectives on relationship dynamics, ideally perspectives that raise important
challenges to the dominant paradigm.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors, who contributed equally to this review, thank Galen Bodenhausen, Jim McNulty,
and Nickola Overall for their insightful feedback on a previous draft, as well as the 16 leading
relationship scientists who provided constructive feedback on an early outline of this paper.
LITERATURE CITED
Agnew CR, Van Lange PA, Rusbult CE, Langston CA. 1998. Cognitive interdependence: commitment and
the mental representation of close relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:939–54

Altman I, Taylor DA. 1973. Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston
Andersen SM, Chen S. 2002. The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychol. Rev. 109:619–
45
Aron A, Lewandowski GW Jr., Mashek D, Aron EN. 2013. The self-expansion model of motivation and
cognition in close relationships. See Simpson & Campbell 2013, pp. 90–115
Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN, McKenna C, Heyman RE. 2000. Couples’ shared participation in novel and
arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:273–84
Arriaga XB, Capezza NM, Daly CA. 2016. Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner:
How much aggression is too much? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 110:36–54
Banse R, Kowalick C. 2007. Implicit attitudes towards romantic partners predict well-being in stressful life
conditions: evidence from the antenatal maternity ward. Int. J. Psychol. 42:149–57
Bartoli AM, Clark MD. 2006. The dating game: similarities and differences in dating scripts among college
students. Sex. Cult. 10:54–80
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117:497–529
Beckes L, Coan JA. 2011. Social baseline theory: the role of social proximity in emotion and economy of
action. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 5:976–88
Berscheid E. 1999. The greening of relationship science. Am. Psychol. 54:260–66
Berscheid E, Regan P. 2005. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Prentice-Hall
Bowlby J. 1969. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books
Bowlby J. 1973. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books
Bowlby J. 1980. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3: Loss. New York: Basic Books
Bradbury TN, Fincham FD. 1990. Attributions in marriage. Review and critique. Psychol. Bull. 107:3–
33
Brehm JW. 1956. Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 52:384–
89
Bretherton I, Munholland KA. 2008. Internal working models in attachment relationships: elaborating a
central construct in attachment theory. In The Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical
Applications, ed. J Cassidy, PR Shaver, pp. 102–27. New York: Guilford
Bronfenbrenner U. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives.
Dev. Psychol. 22:723–42
Buck AA, Neff LA. 2012. Stress spillover in early marriage: the role of self-regulatory depletion. J. Fam.
Psychol. 26:698–708
Buss DM. 2008. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books. 2nd ed.
Buss DM, Shackelford TK. 1997. From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:346–61

Campbell L, Simpson A. 2013. The blossoming of relationship science. See Simpson & Campbell 2013,
pp. 3–10
Cavallo J, Fitzsimons GM, Holmes JG. 2009. Taking chances in the face of threat: romantic risk regulation
and approach motivation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:737–51
Clark MS, Lemay EP. 2010. Close relationships. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. ST Fiske, DT Gilbert,
G Lindzey, pp. 898–940. New York: Wiley
Clark MS, Mills J. 1979. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 37:12–24
Clark MS, Mills JR. 2011. A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. Handb. Theor. Soc. Psychol.
1:232–50
Clark MS, Reis HT. 1988. Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 39:609–72
Coan JA, Schaefer HS, Davidson RJ. 2006. Lending a hand: social regulation of the neural response to threat.
Psychol. Sci. 17:1032–39
Cohen S, Wills TA. 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 98:310–57
Collins NL, Feeney BC. 2004. Working models of attachment affect perceptions of social support: evidence
from experimental and observational studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:363–83

Conley TD, Ziegler A, Moors AC, Matsick JL, Valentine B. 2012. A critical examination of popular assump-
tions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:124–41
de Jong DC, Reis HT. 2015. We do it best: commitment and positive construals of sex. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol.
34:181–202
Debrot A, Cook WL, Perrez M, Horn AB. 2012. Deeds matter: daily enacted responsiveness and intimacy in
couples’ daily lives. J. Fam. Psychol. 26:617–27
DePaulo BM, Morris WL. 2005. Singles in society and in science. Psychol. Inq. 16:57–83
Drigotas SM, Rusbult CE, Verette J. 1999. Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple
well-being. Pers. Relat. 6:389–409
Durante KM, Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ, Gangestad SM, Simpson JA. 2016. Pair-bonded relationships and
romantic alternatives: toward an integration of evolutionary and relationship science perspectives. Adv.
Exp. Soc. Psychol. 53:1–74
Eastwick PW. 2009. Beyond the Pleistocene: using phylogeny and constraint to inform the evolutionary
psychology of human mating. Psychol. Bull. 135:794–821
Eastwick PW. 2013. Cultural influences on attraction. See Simpson & Campbell 2013, pp. 161–82
Eastwick PW. 2016. The emerging integration of close relationships research and evolutionary psychology.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25:183–90
Eastwick PW, Hunt LL. 2014. Relational mate value: consensus and uniqueness in romantic evaluations.
Eastwick PW, Keneski E, Morgan TA, McDonald M. 2016. What do short-term and long-term relationships
look like? Building the Relationship Coordination and Strategic Timing (ReCAST) model. Work. Pap., Dep.
Psychol., Univ. Calif. Davis. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id = 2820704
Eastwick PW, Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, Hunt LL. 2014a. The many voices of Darwin’s descendants: reply to
Schmitt 2014. Psychol. Bull. 140:673–81
Eastwick PW, Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, Hunt LL. 2014b. The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences:
a review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140:623–65
Eisenberger NI, Master SL, Inagaki TK, Taylor SE, Shirinyan D, et al. 2011. Attachment figures activate a
safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. PNAS 108:11721–26
Feeney BC, Collins NL. 2001. Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: an attachment theo-
retical perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:972–94
Feeney BC, Collins NL. 2015. A new look at social support: a theoretical perspective on thriving through
relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19:113–47
Felmlee DH. 2001. No couple is an island: a social network perspective on dyadic stability. Soc. Forces 79:1259–
87
Fincham FD, Beach SRH, Davila J. 2004. Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. J. Fam. Psychol.
18:72–81

Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, McNulty JK, Pond RS Jr., Atkins DC. 2012. Using I3 theory to clarify
when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
102:533–49
Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, Oaten M, Foshee VA. 2009. Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner
violence perpetration. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97:483–99
Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW. 2015. Attachment and pairbonding. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3:7–11
Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW, Karney BR, Reis HT, Sprecher S. 2012. Online dating: a critical analysis from the
perspective of psychological science. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13:3–66
Finkel EJ, Fitzsimons GM, vanDellen MR. 2016. Self-regulation as a transactive process: reconceptualizing
the unit of analysis for goal setting, pursuit, and outcomes. In Handbook of Self-Regulation, ed. KD Vohs,
RF Baumeister, pp. 264–82. New York: Guilford. 3rd ed.
Finkel EJ, Hui CM, Carswell KL, Larson GM. 2014a. The suffocation of marriage: climbing Mount Maslow
without enough oxygen. Psychol. Inq. 25:1–41
Finkel EJ, Larson GM, Carswell KL, Hui CM. 2014b. Marriage at the summit: response to the commentaries.
Psychol. Inq. 25:120–45
Finkel EJ, Simpson JA, eds. 2015. Relationship science. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 1(Spec. Issue). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Finkel EJ, Slotter EB, Luchies LB, Walton GM, Gross JJ. 2013. A brief intervention to promote conflict-
reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychol. Sci. 24:1595–601
Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ. 2011. Outsourcing self-regulation. Psychol. Sci. 22:369–75
Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, vanDellen MR. 2015. Transactive goal dynamics. Psychol. Rev. 122:648–73
Fitzsimons GM, Shah JY. 2008. How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 95:319–37
Fletcher GJ, Kerr PS. 2010. Through the eyes of love: reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychol.
Bull. 136:627–58
Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Campbell L, Overall NC. 2015. Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: the
curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:20–36
Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G. 2000a. Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship
development. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:933–40
Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G. 2000b. The measurement of perceived relationship quality compo-
nents: a confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:340–54
Fraley RC. 2007. A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models of attach-
ment. J. Personal. 75:1157–80
Gable SL, Gosnell CL, Maisel NC, Strachman A. 2012. Safely testing the alarm: close others’ responses to
personal positive events. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 103:963–81
Gable SL, Impett EA. 2012. Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Soc. Personal. Psychol.
Compass 6:95–108
Gable SL, Reis HT. 2001. Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance
and Enhancement, ed. JH Harvey, A Wenzel, pp. 169–94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Gable SL, Reis HT. 2010. Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. Adv. Exp.
Soc. Psychol. 42:195–257
Gagné FM, Lydon JE. 2004. Bias and accuracy in close relationships: an integrative review. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. Rev. 8:322–38
Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM. 2006. Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture
and mate preferences. Psychol. Inq. 17:75–95
Goldin C. 2014. A grand gender convergence: its last chapter. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:1091–119
Gottman JM. 1998. Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:169–97
Gottman JM, Levenson RW. 1999. Rebound from marital conflict and divorce prediction. Fam. Process.
38:287–92
Hazan C, Shaver P. 1987. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
52:511–24
Hazan C, Shaver PR. 1994. Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships.
Psychol. Inq. 5:1–22

Helm JL, Sbarra DA, Ferrer E. 2014. Coregulation of respiratory sinus arrhythmia in adult romantic partners.
Emotion 14:522–31
Hill R. 1949. Families under Stress: Adjustment to the Crises of War Separation and Reunion. New York: Harper
& Brothers
Holmes JG. 1981. The exchange process in close relationships: microbehavior and macromotives. In The
Justice Motive in Social Behavior, ed. MJ Lerner, SC Lerner, pp. 261–84. New York: Plenum
Holmes JG. 2002. Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: an interdependence
theory perspective. Pers. Relat. 9:1–26
Holmes JG, Rempel JK. 1989. Trust in close relationships. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 10,
Close Relationships, ed. C Hendrick, pp. 187–220. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. 2010. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review.
PLOS Med. 7:e1000316
IJzerman H, Coan JA, Wagemans FM, Missler MA, Van Beest I, et al. 2015. A theory of social thermoregulation
in human primates. Front. Psychol. 6:464
Johnson DJ, Rusbult CE. 1989. Resisting temptation: devaluation of alternative partners as a means of main-
taining commitment in close relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:967–80

Karney BR, Bradbury TN. 1995. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory,
method, and research. Psychol. Bull. 118:3–34
Karney BR, Neff LA. 2015. Couples and stress: how demands outside a relationship affect intimacy within the
relationship. See Simpson & Campbell 2013, pp. 664–84
Karremans JC, Verwijmeren T. 2008. Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: the role of romantic relation-
ship status. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:939–50
Kelley HH. 1979. Personal Relationships: Their Structures and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, et al. 1983. Close Relationships. New York:
Freeman
Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. 2003. An Atlas of Interpersonal
Situations. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kelley HH, Thibaut JW. 1978. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley
Kenny DA, Kashy DA. 2011. Dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. In The Handbook of Advanced
Multilevel Analysis, ed. J Hox, JK Roberts, pp. 335–70. London: Taylor & Francis
Kim JS. 2013. The influence of local sex ratio on romantic relationship maintenance processes. PhD Thesis, Univ.
Minn., Minneapolis, MN
Knapp ML, Vangelisti AL, Caughlin JP. 2014. Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon. 7th ed.
Kurdek LA. 2004. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?
J. Marriage Fam. 66:880–900
Kurdek LA. 2005. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 14:251–54
La Guardia JG, Ryan RM, Couchman CE, Deci EL. 2000. Within-person variation in security of attachment:
a self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 79:367–84
Lakey B, Orehek E. 2011. Relational regulation theory: a new approach to explain the link between perceived
social support and mental health. Psychol. Rev. 118:482–95
Laumann EO, Gagnon J, Michael R, Michaels S. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in
the United States. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Laurenceau J-P, Feldman Barrett LA, Pietromonaco PR. 1998. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: the
importance of self-disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Personal.
Lavner JA, Bradbury TN, Karney BR. 2012. Incremental change or initial differences? Testing two models
of marital deterioration. J. Fam. Psychol. 26:606–16
Le B, Agnew CR. 2003. Commitment and its theorized determinants: a meta-analysis of the investment model.
Pers. Relat. 17:37–57
Le B, Dove NL, Agnew CR, Korn MS, Mutso AA. 2010. Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship disso-
lution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Pers. Relat. 17:377–90

Lemay EP Jr., Dudley KL. 2011. Caution: fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure
partners. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100:681–702
Levinger G, Snoek JD. 1972. Attraction in Relationship: A New Look at Interpersonal Attraction. Morristown, NJ:
Gen. Learn. Press
Lewin K. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill
Light AE, Fitzsimons GM. 2014. Contextualizing marriage as a means and a goal. Psychol. Inq. 25:88–94
Loving TJ, Gleason MEJ, Pope MT. 2009. Transition novelty moderates daters’ cortisol responses when
talking about marriage. Pers. Relat. 16:187–203
Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, McNulty JK, Kumashiro M. 2010. The doormat effect: when forgiving erodes self-
respect and self-concept clarity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:734–49
Luchies LB, Wieselquist J, Rusbult CE, Kumashiro M, Eastwick PW. 2013. Trust and biased memory of
transgressions in romantic relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104:673–94
Lydon JE, Karremans JC. 2015. Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: a motivated cognition
framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 1:76–80
Maner JK, Gailliot MT, Miller SL. 2009. The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: inattention to
attractive alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:174–79

Maner JK, Rouby DA, Gonzaga GC. 2008. Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: the evolved psy-
chology of relationship maintenance. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29:343–49
Marshall E, Simpson JA, Rholes WS. 2015. Personality, communication, and depressive symptoms across the
transition to parenthood: a dyadic longitudinal investigation. Eur. J. Personal. 29:216–34
Mashek DJ, Aron A, Boncimino M. 2003. Confusions of self with close others. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
29:382–92
McCubbin HI, Patterson JM. 1983. Family transitions: adaptation to stress. In Stress and the Family: Coping
with Normative Transitions, Vol. 1, ed. HI McCubbin, CR Figley, pp. 5–25. New York: Brunner-Mazel
McNulty JK. 2008. Forgiveness in marriage: putting the benefits into context. J. Fam. Psychol. 22:171–75
McNulty JK. 2013. Personality and relationships. See Simpson & Campbell 2013, pp. 535–52
McNulty JK. 2016a. Highlighting the contextual nature of interpersonal relationships. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
54:247–315
McNulty JK. 2016b. Should spouses be demanding less from marriage? A contextual perspective on the
implications of interpersonal standards. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42:444–57
McNulty JK, Karney BR. 2004. Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect
the best or brace for the worst? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:729–43
McNulty JK, Olson MA, Meltzer AL, Shaffer MJ. 2013. Though they may be unaware, newlyweds implicitly
know whether their marriage will be satisfying. Science 342:1119–20
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. 2007. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford
Press
Miller RS. 1997. Inattentive and contented: relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. J. Personal.
Miller SL, Maner JK. 2010. Evolution and relationship maintenance: Fertility cues lead committed men to
devalue relationship alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:1081–84
Murray SL, Gomillion S, Holmes JG, Harris B, Lamarche V. 2013. The dynamics of relationship promotion:
controlling the automatic inclination to trust. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104:305–34
Murray SL, Griffin DW, Derrick JL, Harris B, Aloni M, Leder S. 2011. Tempting fate or inviting happiness?
Unrealistic idealization prevents the decline of marital satisfaction. Psychol. Sci. 22:619–26
Murray SL, Holmes J. 2009. The architecture of interdependent minds: a motivation-management theory of
mutual responsiveness. Psychol. Rev. 116:908–28
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Collins NL. 2006. Optimizing assurance: the risk regulation system in relationships.
Psychol. Bull. 132:641–66
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Griffin DW. 1996. The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic rela-
tionships: Love is not blind, but prescient. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:1155–80
Neff LA, Broady EF. 2011. Stress resilience in early marriage: Can practice make perfect? J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 101:1050–67

Neff LA, Karney BR. 2003. The dynamic structure of relationship perceptions: differential importance as a
strategy of relationship maintenance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:1433–46
Neff LA, Karney BR. 2009. Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: how stress hinders adaptive
processes in marriage. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97:435–50
Otto AK, Laurenceau JP, Siegel SD, Belcher AJ. 2015. Capitalizing on everyday positive events uniquely
predicts daily intimacy and well-being in couples coping with breast cancer. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
29:69–79
Overall NC, Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Sibley CG. 2009. Regulating partners in intimate relationships: the
costs and benefits of different communication strategies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:620–39
Overall NC, McNulty JK. 2017. What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate
relationships? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 13:1–5
Pierce T, Lydon JE. 2001. Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions.
Randall AK, Bodenmann G. 2009. The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clin.
Psychol. Rev. 29:105–15
Reis HT. 2007. Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Pers. Relat. 14:1–23
Reis HT, Clark MS. 2013. Responsiveness. See Simpson & Campbell 2013, pp. 400–23
Reis HT, Shaver PR. 1988. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory,
Research, and Interventions, ed. S Duck, pp. 367–89. Chichester: Wiley
Repetti RL. 1989. Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: the roles of
social withdrawal and spouse support. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:651–59
Rholes WS, Simpson JA, Kohn JL, Wilson CL, Martin AM, et al. 2011. Attachment orientations and depres-
sion: a longitudinal study of new parents. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100:567–86
Richerson PJ, Boyd R. 2005. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Robles TF, Slatcher RB, Trombello JM, McGinn MM. 2014. Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic
review. Psychol. Bull. 140:140–87
Rubin H, Campbell L. 2012. Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual
occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: a dyadic diary analysis. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3:224–31
Rusbult CE. 1983. A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development (and deterioration) of satis-
faction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:101–17
Rusbult CE, Finkel EJ, Kumashiro M. 2009. The Michelangelo phenomenon. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18:305–9
Rusbult CE, Olsen N, Davis JL, Hannon P. 2001. Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms.
In Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement, ed. JH Harvey, A Wenzel, pp. 87–113.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Rusbult CE, Van Lange P. 2003. Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:351–
75
Rusbult CE, Van Lange PA, Wildschut T, Yovetich NA, Verette J. 2000. Perceived superiority in close
relationships: why it exists and persists. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:521–45
Rusbult CE, Zembrodt IM, Gunn LK. 1982. Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: responses to dissatisfaction in
romantic involvements. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 43:1230–42
Sbarra DA, Hazan C. 2008. Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: an integrative analysis and empirical
agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
12:141–67
Schaller M, Murray DR. 2008. Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide
variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:212–21
Schmitt DP. 2014. On the proper functions of human mate preference adaptations: comment on Eastwick,
Luchies, Finkel, and Hunt 2014. Psychol. Bull. 140:666–72
Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allensworth M, Allik J, Ault L, et al. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe:
a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and the strategies of human mating. Behav. Brain Sci. 28:247–311
Sedikides C, Campbell WK, Reeder GD, Elliot AJ. 1998. The self-serving bias in relational context. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 74(2):378–86

Shallcross S, Howland M, Bemis J, Simpson JA, Frazier P. 2011. Not “capitalizing” on social capitalization
interactions: the role of attachment insecurity. J. Fam. Psychol. 25:77–85
Shallcross S, Simpson JA. 2012. Trust and responsiveness in strain-test situations: a dyadic perspective.
Simon W, Gagnon JH. 2003. Sexual scripts: origins, influences and changes. Qual. Sociol. 26:491–97
Simpson JA. 2007. Psychological foundations of trust. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16:264–68
Simpson JA, Belsky J. 2016. Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. In The Handbook of
Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, ed. J Cassidy, PR Shaver, pp. 91–116. New York:
Guilford. 3rd ed.
Simpson JA, Campbell L. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Simpson JA, Fletcher GJO, Campbell L. 2001. The structure and function of ideal standards in close rela-
tionships. In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes, ed. GJO Fletcher, MS Clark,
pp. 86–106. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Simpson JA, Gangestad SW, Lerma M. 1990. Perception of physical attractiveness: mechanisms involved in
the maintenance of romantic relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59:1192–201
Simpson JA, Ickes W, Blackstone T. 1995. When the head protects the heart: empathic accuracy in dating
relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:629–41
Simpson JA, Overall NC. 2014. Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23:54–59
Simpson JA, Rholes WS. 2012. Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Adv. Exp.
Simpson JA, Rholes WS, Nelligan JS. 1992. Support-seeking and support-giving within couples in an anxiety-
provoking situation: the role of attachment styles. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 62:434–46
Slotter EB, Gardner WL. 2009. Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other
integration between relationship partners. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:1137–51
Sprecher S. 2011. The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: through the lens of the social
network. Pers. Relat. 18:630–44
Sternberg RJ. 1986. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93:119–35
Szepsenwol O, Griskevicius V, Simpson JA, Young ES, Fleck C, Jones RE. 2016. The effect of predictable
early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evol. Behav. Sci. In press
Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley
Uchino BN, Bosch JA, Smith TW, Carlisle M, Birmingham W, et al. 2013. Relationships and cardiovascular
risk: perceived spousal ambivalence in specific relationship contexts and its links to inflammation. Health
Psychol. 32:1067–75
West TV, Kenny DA. 2011. The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychol. Rev. 118:357–78
Wieselquist J, Rusbult C, Foster C, Agnew C. 1999. Commitment, prorelationship behavior, and trust in close
relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77:942–66
Zeifman D, Hazan C. 2008. Pairbonds as attachments: reevaluating the evidence. In The Handbook of At-
tachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, ed. J Cassidy, PR Shaver, pp. 436–55. New York:
Guilford

2017 FinkelSimpsonEastwick AnnuRevPsych

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 FinkelSimpsonEastwick AnnuRevPsych

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 FinkelSimpsonEastwick AnnuRevPsych

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL

Eli J. Finkel,1 Jeffry A. Simpson,2

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017. 68:383–411 Keywords

OPTIMIZING RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE: THEORETICAL COHESION

384 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

MAJOR THEORIES IN RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 385

EXTRACTING PRINCIPLES: A CULINARY METAPHOR

386 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

affects long-term relationship quality and stability

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 387

THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE

Set 1: What Is a Relationship?

Set 4: How does the context affect relationships?

11. Diagnosticity 13. Stress

Set 1: What is a relationship?

1. Uniqueness 2. Integration 3. Trajectory

Set 3: What tendencies do people

Set 2: How do relationships operate?

388 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

studies (Kenny & Kashy 2011).

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 389

390 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

Set 2: How Do Relationships Operate?

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 391

392 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 393

394 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

Set 3: What Tendencies Do People Bring to Their Relationships?

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 395

396 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

Set 4: How Does the Context Affect Relationships?

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 397

Alternatives. The presence of attractive alternatives to a current relationship—including the option of

398 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 399

400 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

COMBINING THE PRINCIPLES TO REFINE OR DEVELOP THEORIES

Reﬁning Existing Theories

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 401

Generating New Theories

OPTIMIZING RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE: THEORETICAL COHESION

402 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 403

404 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

the mental representation of close relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:939–54

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 405

from experimental and observational studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:363–83

406 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 407

taining commitment in close relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:967–80

408 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

attractive alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:174–79

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 409

410 Finkel · Simpson · Eastwick

www.annualreviews.org • Relationship Science 411

You might also like