We are delighted to have received such thoughtful, detailed commentaries on our target article. Although the relationship trajectories framework is simply a first attempt at a broader structure for conceptualizing time in relationships, we are encouraged that it sparked so many creative and novel ideas among these excellent scholars. If the framework proves to have lasting impact, we hope first and foremost that it inspires researchers to tackle a diverse array of research questions like those articulated by the commentators. We were also pleased to discover many key areas of agreement across the commentaries: For example, there is considerable enthusiasm for work that bridges the empirical gap between initial attraction and relationship formation, and there is optimism that the framework will aid in integrating close relationships research and the evolutionary psychology of human mating. We are also grateful to these scholars for taking the time to sensitize us to issues in the target article that were oversimplified, underdeveloped, or missing entirely. What follows is a five-section response to the various issues that the commentators raised. The first section reviews specific questions that, collectively, revolve around whether the framework could be more expansive or structured differently. The second section discusses the concept of relationship readiness and, more broadly, the exciting challenge of assessing features of an individual before a relationship begins. The third section explores the connection between evolved, functional systems and relationship length, and it considers cases where categorical thinking about relationships may or may not be generative. The fourth section incorporates the diagnostic situation into the framework as a key example of a discontinuous, idiosyncratically timed predictor. The fifth and final section expands the framework beyond the monogamous norm to incorporate the broader relationship ecosystem, which includes a wider variety of relationship types (e.g., polyamorous relationships, friendships) and a consideration of the needs and goals that people seek to fulfill through particular relationship partners.

中文翻译：

---

关系轨迹框架：细化和扩展

我们很高兴收到关于我们目标文章的如此周到、详细的评论。虽然关系轨迹框架只是对关系中的时间概念化的更广泛结构的首次尝试，但我们感到鼓舞的是，它在这些优秀学者中激发了如此多的创造性和新颖的想法。如果该框架被证明具有持久的影响，我们首先希望它能够激励研究人员解决各种研究问题，就像评论员所阐述的那样。我们还很高兴地发现评论中有许多关键的共识领域：例如，人们对弥合最初吸引力和关系形成之间的经验差距的工作有相当大的热情，并且乐观地认为该框架将有助于整合亲密关系研究和人类交配的进化心理学。我们也感谢这些学者花时间让我们了解目标文章中过于简单化、欠发达或完全缺失的问题。以下是对评论员提出的各种问题的五个部分的回应。第一部分回顾了具体问题，这些问题共同围绕框架是否可以更广泛或结构不同。第二部分讨论关系准备的概念，更广泛地说，讨论在关系开始之前评估个人特征的令人兴奋的挑战。第三部分探讨了进化、功能系统和关系长度之间的联系，它考虑了对关系的分类思考可能会或可能不会产生的情况。第四部分将诊断情况合并到框架中，作为不连续、特殊定时预测器的关键示例。第五部分也是最后一部分将框架扩展到一夫一妻制之外，以纳入更广泛的关系生态系统，其中包括更广泛的关系类型（例如，多角恋关系、友谊），并考虑人们寻求通过特定方式实现的需求和目标。关系伙伴。