Search

The purpose of this paper is to extend to the field of relationship science, recent discussions and suggested changes in open research practises. We demonstrate different ways that greater transparency of the research process in our field will accelerate scientific progress by increasing accuracy of reported research findings. Importantly, we make concrete recommendations for how relationship researchers can transition to greater disclosure of research practices in a manner that is sensitive to the unique design features of methodologies employed by relationship scientists. We discuss how to implement these recommendations for four different research designs regularly used in relationship research and practical limitations regarding implementing our recommendations and provide potential solutions to these problems.

This special issue on “mind–body connections in personal relationships” brings together 8 empirical contributions by researchers from a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds. The objectives for this issue were threefold: (a) to highlight research being conducted by close relationships researchers, (b) to foster disciplinary cross-pollination, and (c) to emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of the research in this domain. The quality of the submissions received for this special issue ensured that all of these objectives were met. The primary goal for this introduction to the special issue was to briefly outline how close relationships scholars are in prime position to contribute to a holistic understanding of the mechanisms underlying the reciprocal association between close relationships and physical/physiological functioning.

Nonmarital couples' salivary cortisol responses during a likelihood of marriage discussion were assessed. Sixty-eight couple members (34 couples) in the United States independently indicated the extent to which they had experience thinking about and talking about marriage to their current partners (i.e., marriage novelty). Couples subsequently jointly graphed their chance of marriage to each other over the course of their relationship histories. Increased levels of marriage novelty predicted heightened cortisol reactivity to the joint discussion relative to cortisol responses of couple members for whom the idea of marriage was less novel. These results highlight the impact simply discussing transitions can have on individuals' physiological responses, and add to the expanding literature concerning the link between nonmarital romances and biological outcomes.

In this study, a prototype analysis of romantic missing was conducted. College-age participants in the United States generated features of missing a partner (Study 1) and rated their centrality (Study 2). In a reaction time task, participants made category judgments for central features more quickly than for noncentral features (Study 3). In recognition and recall tasks, central features were more salient in participants’ memory, and participants evaluated individuals experiencing central features in vignettes as missing their partners more (Study 4). A prototypebased measure of missing administered to individuals in long-distance relationships (Study 5) correlated with commitment and attachment dimensions but only weakly with loneliness. Finally, level of missing differed based on whether individuals were in a geographically distant (vs. proximal) relationships (Study 6).

Two recent studies (C. R. Agnew, T. J. Loving, & S. M. Drigotas, 2001; T. K. MacDonald & M. Ross, 1999) investigated the relative ability of outsiders’ (network members) and daters’ perceptions of the daters’ romance to predict relationship fate. Careful analysis of these studies suggests that the types of network members asked and what is asked significantly impact the prognostic ability of outsiders’ perceptions. The current research replicates and extends this literature and highlights the challenges posed when collecting outsiders’ perspectives of their friends’ relationships. Daters and 2 friends (1 female, 1 male) were asked to provide their perceptions of the dating relationship on 2 indexes: a direct prediction of the likelihood that the relationship would last 6 months and an overall qualitative assessment of the dater’s commitment. Results highlight the need for researchers to carefully attend to the instruments and samples employed when obtaining multiple perspectives of the same dating relationship.