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.

中文翻译：

---

我们应该研究关系轨迹，但我们应该更广泛地思考元理论框架

关于最初的吸引力和亲密关系的性质和功能的研究正在蓬勃发展。然而，Eastwick、Finkel 和 Simpson（本期）正确地指出，目前缺乏关于浪漫关系如何随着时间的推移而开始、成长、变化和恶化的研究结果。伊斯特维克等人。提倡更多地关注跨时间关系轨迹形状的三个方面，特别敦促我们关注成员所看到的这些关系的整体判断质量的上升、峰值和下降。他们敦促我们确定达到的阈值（例如对关系的承诺）。他们敦促我们注意关系的各个方面的构成，这些方面有助于这些浪漫关系评估的轨迹。最后，他们敦促我们将任何既定的浪漫和/或性关系的轨迹置于其他同时发生的、先前的和随后的浪漫和/或性关系的轨迹的背景中。我们强烈同意，我们的关系研究领域将通过记录跨时间关系轨迹的性质以及关注 Eastwick 等人所研究的所有五个因素而得到加强。（这个问题）点。我们也同意他们的建议，即我们应该记录关系的规范轨迹和这些轨迹中的个体差异，在可能的情况下捕捉关系的最初阶段，并检查关系中每个成员的轨迹并在可能的情况下比较成员的轨迹。然而，在研究人员使用 Eastwick 等人绘制关系轨迹之前。的元理论框架作为指导，我们主张退后一步，仔细而广泛地思考他们的框架及其五个维度。我们个人会以某种方式扩大他们的框架并以其他方式改变他们框架的特征，然后再利用它来调查我们自己的研究问题。在这里，我们提供了一些建议，以增加框架的广度和精确度，使其更普遍地适用于关系研究人员。首先，我们注意到 Eastwick 等人。（本期）专门针对浪漫和/或性关系撰写并应用他们的框架。然而，他们所确定的维度对于研究所有亲密关系非常重要，事实上，所有关系，无论是否亲密，都可以跨越时间。其次，就要跟踪的关系结果而言，Eastwick 等人。只强调“弧形评价”轨迹。我们认为关系研究人员应该跟踪许多不同的结果和结果的组合，而不仅仅是浪漫或性感觉或其他有价值的评估，例如关系质量和承诺。有许多不同的关系特征以及许多不同的内部和人际关系过程值得跨时间跟踪。对结果的评估不必总是首要的和主要的结构。哪个或哪些构造将（并且应该）成为主要意志（并且应该）取决于研究人员自己的理论和目的。第三，我们建议将与跨时间轨迹形状相关的维度与阈值、作为整体评估形状基础的过程组成等维度区分开来，和关系轨迹的密度。与最后一点有关，我们建议放弃术语“弧形轨迹”而支持简单的术语“轨迹形状”，因为并非所有可能的轨迹都包括术语“弧形”所指的曲线（即使我们怀疑很多人会。）我们还建议扩展后一组维度（即阈值、组成和密度）中考虑的结构。我们接下来简要阐述每一点。阈值、成分和密度）。我们接下来简要阐述每一点。阈值、成分和密度）。我们接下来简要阐述每一点。