A systematic review of relationship maintenance: Reflecting back and looking to the future

Abstract

Relationship maintenance processes include a wide range of activities and cognitions that romantic partners engage in to sustain or enhance their relationships. In this article, we review literature from the past two decades (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021). We focus on key definitional and conceptual issues in the study of relational maintenance. Guided by a lens of intersectionality, we then perform a theoretically-driven review of the empirical articles published over the last 20 years paying careful attention to the nature of the samples, methods, and privileged research questions. We conclude by offering a reflection on the current state of this literature and provide suggestions for future research.

Romantic love evolved by co-opting mother-infant bonding

“…I re-assert that romantic love serves a pair bonding function (Fletcher et al, 2015;Bode and Kushnick, 2021). Distinct pair bond formation and pair bond maintenance functions and mechanisms exist in animals (see Loth and Donaldson, 2021;Duclot et al, 2022), and there is every reason to believe that this is the case in humans (see Sprecher et al, 2008;Ogolsky and Monk, 2019;Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 for conceptually related work in humans). Romantic love, specifically, serves a pair bond formation function.…”

Diversity and inclusion in relationship science: Reflections as an International Section Peer Mentor for Personal Relationships

“…I am most familiar with the literature on these lines of work, and I have only recently begun to educate myself on the literature regarding the diversity of the samples commonly studied in relationship science (Curran & Randall, 2023; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). I have not conducted a systematic review of the literature myself (Curran & Randall, 2023; Ogolsky & Stafford, 2022; Weiser et al, 2022), which may limit the recommendations I can make regarding the diversification of relationship science. Another limitation concerns the personal barriers that I have faced regarding the participant recruitment process.…”

Editorial: Not so WEIRD after all? Relationship science in diverse samples and contexts

“…Like many areas of psychology, relationship science suffers from historically drawing from “WEIRD” samples and stimuli (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic; Karney and Bradbury, 1995 ; Henrich et al, 2010a , b ; Judd et al, 2012 ). These biases are compounded through an over-representation of people who identify as straight, monogamous, and are interested in long-term partnerships (vs. being single) (Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Pollitt et al, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ). Despite over a decade's worth of awareness of the lack of inclusivity, relationship science remains largely dependent on biased samples (IJzerman et al, 2021 ; Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ).…”

“…These biases are compounded through an over-representation of people who identify as straight, monogamous, and are interested in long-term partnerships (vs. being single) (Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Pollitt et al, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ). Despite over a decade's worth of awareness of the lack of inclusivity, relationship science remains largely dependent on biased samples (IJzerman et al, 2021 ; Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ). Part of the difficulty in addressing the lack of diversity in the literature lies in barriers to publishing work from diverse populations and diverse contexts in top journals in the field.…”