We Should Study Relational Trajectories, but We Should Think through the Metatheoretical Framework More Broadly

Research on initial attraction and on the nature and functioning of close relationships is flourishing. Yet Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (this issue) correctly point to a current dearth of findings on how romantic relationships are initiated, grow, change, and deteriorate across time. Eastwick et al. advocate for increased attention to three aspects of the shape of relationship trajectories across time, specifically urging us to focus on the ascent, peak, and descent of the overall judged quality of these relationships as seen by their members. They urge us to determine where thresholds (for such things as commitment to a relationship) are reached. They urge us to attend to the composition of aspects of relationships that contribute to the trajectory of these evaluations of romantic relationships. Finally, they urge us to place the trajectory of any given romantic and/or sexual relationship in the context of the trajectories of other concurrent, prior, and subsequent romantic and/or sexual relationships. We strongly agree that our field of relationship research would be strengthened by documenting the nature of relationship trajectories across time and by attending to all five factors to which Eastwick et al. (this issue) point. We also agree with their advice that we should document both normative trajectories of relationships and individual differences in those trajectories, capture the very beginnings of relationships when possible, and examine trajectories of each member of a relationship and compare members’ trajectories when possible. Yet before researchers map out relationship trajectories using Eastwick et al.’s metatheoretical framework as a guide, we advocate stepping back and thinking carefully and broadly about their framework and its five dimensions. We, personally, would broaden their framework in some ways and alter the characterization of their framework in other ways before utilizing it to investigate our own research questions. Here we provide some suggestions for adding breadth and precision to the framework to make it more generally applicable to relationship researchers. First, we note that Eastwick et al. (this issue) write about and apply their framework specifically to romantic and/or sexual relationships. Yet the dimensions they identify are important for studying all close relationships and, indeed, all relationships, close or not, that endure across time. Second, in terms of relational outcomes to be tracked, Eastwick et al. emphasize only “arc-shaped evaluative” trajectories. We believe relationship researchers should track many different outcomes and combinations of outcomes, not just romantic or sexual feelings or other, valenced evaluations such as relationship quality, and commitment. There are many different relationship characteristics as well as many different intraand interpersonal processes worth tracking across time. Evaluations of outcomes need not always be the overarching and primary construct. Which construct or constructs will (and should) be primary will (and should) depend upon researchers’ own theories and purposes. Third, we suggest differentiating dimensions related to the shape of trajectories across time from dimensions such as thresholds, composition of processes underlying the shape of overall evaluations, and density of relationship trajectories. Connected to this last point, we propose the abandonment of the term “arc-shaped trajectories” in favor of the simple term “shape of trajectories” because not all possible trajectories include the curves to which the term “arc” alludes (even though we suspect many will.) We also suggest an expansion of constructs considered in the latter group of dimensions (i.e., threshold, composition, and density). We elaborate briefly on each point next.