Commitment Readiness and Relationship Formation

Abstract

The concept of being ready for a relationship is pervasive in popular culture, but theoretical and empirical research on readiness is lacking. We offer a conceptualization of commitment readiness and provide some of the first empirical work examining readiness among single individuals—specifically how this construct shapes various aspects of relationship formation. Using data from five independent samples of individuals not involved in romantic relationships, we first establish that commitment readiness is associated with more interest in developing a close romantic relationship (Studies 1a, 1b, 2) and with active pursuit of relationship initiation (Study 2). We then test whether readiness among single individuals longitudinally predicts both the likelihood of later entering a relationship and, ultimately, how committed individuals are to a future relationship (Studies 3a, 3b, 3c). Implications of commitment readiness specifically, and perceived personal timing more generally, for the social psychology of relationships are discussed.

Full text

Commitment Readiness and Relationship Formation
Word Count: 10,981

Abstract
The concept of being ready for a relationship is pervasive in popular culture, but theoretical and
empirical research on readiness is lacking. We offer a conceptualization of commitment
readiness and provide some of the first empirical work examining readiness among single
individuals—specifically how this construct shapes various aspects of relationship formation.
Using data from five independent samples of individuals not involved in romantic relationships,
we first establish that commitment readiness is associated with more interest in developing a
close romantic relationship (Studies 1a, 1b, 2) and with active pursuit of relationship initiation
(Study 2). We then test whether readiness among single individuals longitudinally predicts both
the likelihood of later entering a relationship and, ultimately, how committed individuals are to a
future relationship (Studies 3a, 3b, 3c). Implications of commitment readiness specifically, and
perceived personal timing more generally, for the social psychology of relationships are
discussed.
KEYWORDS: Readiness, Relationship Receptivity, Romantic Relationships, Relationship
Initiation, Commitment

Commitment Readiness and Relationship Formation
“I’m very flattered, but again, I don’t think I should go out with you….I just don’t think I’m in a
place to go out with anyone right now.” ~ Ann Perkins, Parks and Recreation (2011)
People do not always feel ready to enter a relationship. As illustrated above, Ann Perkins
feels a subjective sense that she is simply not ready for a relationship, even though someone is
presumably interested in her. Thus, she is not open or receptive to seriously dating or committing
to a relationship. The idea of relationship readiness pervades popular culture, with periodicals
such as Huffington Post to websites such as eHarmony offering advice as to whether people are
ready for a committed relationship (Garapick, 2013; Sama, 2014). Relationship counselors have
also contributed to the popular culture perspective on readiness, with a recent Psychology Today
article providing a 10-question quiz to tell people if they are ready for commitment (Gunther,
2016). These articles share a similar premise: Perceived personal timing—whether the time is
“right” or not for one to be involved in a relationship—underlies individuals’ ability to
successfully form and maintain relationships. When an individual is ready, they are able to form,
maintain, and commit to a relationship. When an individual is not ready, they are unable to and
will struggle with such interdependence.
Despite the seeming ubiquity of advice surrounding readiness in popular culture, the
scientific literature on the role of commitment readiness is near non-existent. The present
research focuses on the construct of commitment readiness as an important factor underlying
three aspects of relationship formation: (1) whether readiness is associated with interest in and
pursuit of romantic relationships; (2) whether readiness predicts the likelihood that individuals
will actually enter into a relationship in the following months; and (3) among those who do enter

a romantic relationship, whether readiness prior to the relationship is associated with their
subsequent commitment to that relationship.
Individual Differences in Relationship Interest
The importance of feeling that one belongs and is connected to close others has such
robust implications for mental and physical health that the need to belong is widely considered a
basic psychological need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Romantic
relationships are a particularly important social relationship (Day, Kay, Holmes, & Napier, 2011;
DePaulo & Morris, 2006) that have increasingly been viewed as the primary social relationship
through which one can fulfill belongingness needs (Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014).
Despite this, several lines of research indicate that people vary in the extent to which they are
receptive toward committed romantic relationships. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973; Hazan &
Shaver, 1994), for instance, outlines insecure attachment as a developmental process in which
people become more or less comfortable relying on others as a function of past experiences.
Avoidant attachment, specifically, is denoted by a perception that others cannot be relied upon
and thus gives rise to strong resistance to intimacy and closeness. Avoidant individuals tend to
experience lower quality relationships (Hadden, Smith, & Webster, 2014) and suffer long-term
negative health consequences (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Indeed, there is evidence
to suggest that people motivated to avoid conflict are happier single than in a relationship
(Girme, Overall, Faingataa, & Sibley, 2016). On the other hand, people can also experience
anxiety or distress at the thought of being single in the future, which has been shown to motivate
people to seek and maintain romantic bonds with less-than-ideal partners (Spielmann et al.,
2013). These perspectives suggest that, although the need to belong is strong, people exhibit
differences in how receptive they are to romantic relationships.

Relationship Receptivity Theory and Commitment Readiness
Relationship receptivity theory (RRT; [Citations removed for masked review]) builds on
such research by highlighting the role of perceived personal timing as a core factor underlying
relationship development and maintenance. According to this perspective, one of the primary
factors underlying relationship receptivity is commitment readiness. Feeling ready denotes a
sense of preparedness and ability to commit to a romantic relationship for the foreseeable future.
Henceforth, we refer to commitment readiness simply as readiness. RRT draws on
developmental, situational, and dispositional perspectives to posit that people have a sense of
whether or not they are ready to be in a romantic relationship at any given time. People may be
dispositionally high or low in readiness as the result of relationship history (e.g., a history of
challenging or unhealthy relationships) or temporarily high or low in readiness as a result of
situational factors (e.g., pressures from professional life, recent break up).
Although readiness in reference to close relationships has not previously been the subject
of serious theoretical or empirical investigation, the broader construct of readiness has been
discussed in a number of psychological theories. Readiness has been proposed as a component of
learning in several theories, such as Thorndike’s theory of learning (1932), Bruner’s theory of
instruction (1966), and Bandura’s social learning theory (1986), whereby relative readiness or
unreadiness for a behavior or response predicts the likelihood of that response. Readiness has
also been a central component within health psychology. For instance, the Stages of Change
Model (also referred to as the Transtheoretical Model; Prochaska & DiClemente, 2005) posits
that people go through different stages with respect to perceived readiness before enacting a
health-relevant behavior. Readiness, according to this perspective, is a crucial precursor to action

and maintenance. This is an especially relevant point regarding our hypothesized role of
readiness in accounting for relational pursuit and eventual maintenance of future relationships.
As noted above, there are also several concepts native to relationship science that
indirectly address differences in people’s relationship receptivity, and it is worth noting the
conceptual distinctions with readiness. First, although readiness and avoidance are likely to be
negatively related—readiness suggests a level of comfort and willingness to be close to others—
a lack of readiness does not necessarily denote perceiving others as unreliable or that closeness
and intimacy are undesirable (Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005, 2007).
Imagine, for example, someone who feels unready because they feel the need to prioritize
professional life or recently broke up with a partner and wants to “work on themselves.” In this
case, they may want to develop romantic bonds, but have prioritized situational pressures or
personal goals over relational ones. Similarly, although readiness and fear of being single are
likely related, they are conceptually distinct in several ways. Readiness specifically, and RRT
more generally, focuses on a subjective sense of timing that fear of being single does not
(Spielmann et al. 2013). Feeling that the time is right to start or maintain a relationship does not
necessarily include feelings of anxiety about being or remaining single. Instead, it is reasonable
to imagine someone who feels ready for a romantic relationship while being perfectly at peace
with remaining single until they find a suitable partner.
Thus far, the empirical evidence on readiness specifically (and perceived timing more
generally) in the relationships literature has been limited. Some qualitative work found that a
number of research participants mentioned feeling ready as an antecedent to falling in love with
their given partner (Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson, 1989; Riela, Rodriguez, Aron, Xu, &
Acevado, 2010). However, these findings were based on retrospective narratives, and it is as yet

unclear how readiness prospectively predicts relationship development. More recent work on
readiness has examined its role among people who are already in a relationship [Citation
removed for masked review]. Across six samples, researchers found that individuals who
perceived themselves as being more ready for commitment were more likely to (1) exhibit
increases in commitment level over time, (2) enact more relationship maintenance behaviors, and
(3) persist in their relationships. This research was focused specifically on predicting the
maintenance and persistence of ongoing relationships, however, and did not examine a crucial
tenet of RRT: that readiness before entering a relationship shapes relationship formation
processes, including both initial relationship initiation and the manner and degree to which
relationships will persist. Having provided an overview of readiness, and its distinction from
other potentially related variables, we now consider readiness and its role in relationship
formation.
Readiness and Relationship Pursuit/Initiation
We propose that readiness plays a crucial role across phases of relationship formation.
Among currently single people who feel ready for a committed relationship, they are more likely
to engage in contemplation about dating and hold more positive views about closeness with a
romantic partner than those who feel less ready. This is in line with models of readiness in other
domains, such as health behaviors (Prochaska & DiClemente, 2005), in which higher readiness
for a behavior is associated with more perceived benefits than costs associated with the change.
Given that one of the primary benefits associated with romantic relationships is a sense of
belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Finkel et al., 2015), it is reasonable to assert that
individuals who are readier for a relationship will anticipate more benefits from closeness with a
romantic partner. People who are less or not ready, on the other hand, may, for example,

perceive conflict between personal and relational goals or that being close to a romantic partner
will result in a loss of personal control (Aron et al., 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004), and will
consequently have more negative perceptions of closeness.
When individuals feel readier to be in a committed relationship, they should also be more
likely to behave in ways that facilitate relationship initiation. This may involve such general
behaviors as paying more attention to one’s appearance in order to be more attractive to potential
partners (Buss, 1994; Buss & Craik, 1983; Greer & Buss, 1994; Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams,
1999) or enacting more proactive behaviors, such as acting with the intention of meeting or
progressing a romantic interest, or engaging in a diverse set of behaviors such as expressing
romantic desire, maintaining close physical contact, playfully teasing, or overtly flirting with
someone with whom they are interested (Buss, 1988; Clark et al., 1999). Enacting such romantic
initiation behaviors has previously been shown to facilitate relationship initiation (Buss, 1988;
Clark et al., 1999; Lemay & Wolf, 2016). In summary, we contend that currently single
individuals with higher readiness are more likely to demonstrate interest in romantic
relationships, engage in behaviors conducive to relationship initiation, and over time, be more
likely to enter and maintain a romance.
Readiness and Later Relationship Dynamics
Beyond simply promoting pursuit of romantic relationships, does readiness prior to
entering a relationship have implications for how individuals perceive and maintain that
relationship? In the present research, we focused primarily on commitment level as an outcome
because of its well-established role in predicting the enactment of various relationship
maintenance behaviors, which, in turn, serve to keep a relationship intact (Agnew &
VanderDrift, 2015; Le & Agnew, 2003). Commitment level in this context refers to the extent to

which one intends to maintain a relationship with a partner, has a long-term orientation toward
the relationship, and feels attached to a partner (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Prior research
suggests that readiness and commitment level are related among individuals already in
relationships, and that both play an important role in predicting relationship maintenance and
stability over time [Citations removed for masked review]. However, this set of studies only
examined readiness among individuals already involved in a romance, allowing for readiness and
commitment level to be measured at the same time. As such, although there is evidence that
readiness and commitment level are related, it is not yet known how readiness preceding a
relationship predicts how committed an individual will be once they start a relationship.
To understand how readiness when single may predict commitment upon later entering a
relationship, we turn to the investment model of commitment processes (Rusbult 1980, 1983;
Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012), which provides one of the most useful and generative
theoretical frameworks for understanding commitment and relationship stability. According to
the investment model, commitment is a function of three factors: satisfaction with, quality of
alternatives to, and investments in the relationship. Readiness before entering a relationship may
shape later commitment to that relationship via such factors. Satisfaction refers to the extent to
which an individual perceives more benefits relative to cost (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Because
readiness for a behavior is associated with more perceived benefits (Prochaska & DiClemente,
2005), we reason that if individuals feel readier for a relationship they will experience more
benefits from being in one, and thus be more satisfied. Those who are less or not ready, on the
other hand, may find relationships too burdensome. Investments refer to tangible (e.g., money,
belongings) or intangible (e.g., emotional investment, sacrifices) resources that will be lost
should a relationship end (Rusbult, 1980), and serve to keep people committed to a relationship.

We reason that individuals who are readier for a relationship are more likely to invest in
their relationship. For instance, imagine an individual who feels unready but finds themselves in
a relationship. Because they perceive a lack of readiness to maintain a relationship, they will
likely be more hesitant to contribute resources or become too emotionally reliant on that
relationship. An individual who feels ready, however, will likely not have such reservations.
Quality of alternatives refer to the quality of outcomes obtainable outside of the current
relationship (e.g., other partners, being alone). It is less clear how readiness when single will
relate to quality of alternatives upon entering a relationship. To the extent to which perceived
alternatives accurately reflect actual alternatives, there will not be a robust association. However,
to the extent that readiness may lead to motivated derogation or inattentiveness to alternatives
(Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Miller, 1997, 2003; Maner, Gailliot, & Miller, 2009), readiness may
also reduce perceived quality of alternatives. As such, we largely expect that the predictive role
of readiness on commitment would be mediated by such investment model processes.
Overview of Present Research
The present research examines the role of readiness among single individuals, focusing
specifically on its role in relationship formation and development. We specifically sought to test
the role of readiness in (1) promoting relationship interest and pursuit, (2) eventual relationship
initiation, and (3) commitment level among those who enter a relationship. To do so, we
examined five independent samples of individuals who were not involved in romantic
relationships. Study 1 provides preliminary evidence from two cross-sectional samples that
readiness is a meaningful construct among single people, and is uniquely related to interest in a
close romantic relationship. Study 2 employs a daily diary methodology to determine how daily
fluctuations in perceived readiness correspond to daily interest in relationships and enacting

behavior intended to facilitate relationship formation. In Study 3, we examined three longitudinal
datasets to test the prediction that readiness predicts higher likelihood of starting a romantic
relationship and higher commitment—via investment model processes—to any new relationship
that is formed.
Study 1
Study 1 was designed as a preliminary test of whether readiness when single is associated
with interest in forming a close bond with a hypothetical partner, and to provide preliminary
evidence that this association is not due to fear of being single or avoidant attachment. We
collected two cross-sectional samples of individuals not involved in a romantic relationship, one
from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and another from an undergraduate subject pool. Participants
reported their level of readiness, as well as their fear of being single and ideal levels of closeness
with a hypothetical romantic partner.
Methods
Participants & Procedures.
Study 1a consisted of 100 participants (58 women, 42 men) recruited from Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk. To be eligible, participants had to be located in the United States, speak fluent
English, and currently not be in a romantic relationship (participants who were in a romantic
relationship completed a different survey and are reported in [Citations removed for masked
review]. The age of participants ranged from 21 to 63 (M = 30.76 years old, SD = 10.08). The
sample was primarily White/Caucasian (81%), with an additional 10% Black/African American,
3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% Latino/a, and 4% reporting multiple ethnicities. Participants
signed up for the study online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and were offered $1 for
participation. Participants were shown a consent form and completed a series of questionnaires at

their own pace, including readiness, fear of being single, ideal closeness in a romantic
relationship, and other measures not relevant to the present investigation. Upon completion, they
read a debriefing page and were paid.
Study 1b consisted of 228 undergraduates (125 women, 100 men, 3 did not identify their
gender) in an introductory psychology class at a large Midwestern university who completed the
survey in exchange for course credit. All participants included in the analyses reported not being
in a romantic relationship (participants who were in a romantic relationship completed a different
survey and are reported in [Authors masked for peer review]). Age ranged from 18 years to 26
years old (M = 18.92, SD = 1.15). The sample was primarily White/Caucasian (61%), with 25%
Asian, 6% Latino/Hispanic, 4% Black/African American, 3% reporting multiple
races/ethnicities, and the remaining 1% reported another race/ethnicity. Participants signed up
online and were shown a consent form. If they agreed to participate, they completed a series of
questionnaires which included measures of readiness, fear of being single, ideal closeness in a
romantic relationship, and other measures not relevant to the present investigation. Upon
completion, they read a debriefing page and were awarded credit for participation.
Measures.
Readiness was assessed using the 8-item scale created by [Citation removed for masked
review], designed for use by individuals both currently involved and not involved in a romantic
relationship, and previously validated among samples of people already in romantic
relationships. Participants responded to items that assessed how ready they were for a committed
relationship (e.g., “I feel that this is the ‘right time’ for me to be in a committed relationship.”)
on a 9-point scale from 0 (Completely disagree) to 8 (Completely agree) ( 
  ).

Fear of being single was assessed with a 6-item scale (Spielmann et al., 2013).
Participants responded to items assessing anxiety over not finding a romantic partner (e.g., “I
feel anxious when I think about being single forever.”) on a 5-point scale from 1 (Not at all true)
to 5 (Very true) (    ).
Avoidant attachment was assessed with the 6-item subscale of the Experiences in Close
Relationships – Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) questionnaire (Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, &
Brumbaugh, 2011). Participants responded to items (e.g., “I don't feel comfortable opening up to
others.”) on a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) ( 
  ).
Ideal closeness was used to assess interest in a romantic relationship, using an adapted
version of the Inclusion of the Other in Self Scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992).
Participants chose a picture from a series of increasingly overlapping circles that corresponded to
different degrees of ideal closeness with a hypothetical romantic partner (i.e., “Please choose the
circle that best describes your ideal relationship with a romantic partner”).
Results and Discussion
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. We first sought to determine if the measure of readiness
previously validated among coupled populations functioned similarly in single samples. We thus
conducted a confirmatory factor analysis separately for Studies 1a and 1b using SAS 9.4 PROC
CALIS, fitting a one-factor solution in which all eight readiness items loaded onto one factor. Fit
for this model was adequate in both samples (
    
     
         ), despite high
RMSEAs. All items had standardized factor loadings above .75 in both samples.

Main Analyses. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for both samples can be
found in Table 1. As expected, readiness was modestly correlated with fear of being single
(positive) and avoidant attachment (negative), indicating that although these constructs are
related, they are empirically distinct. Regarding our main hypotheses, readiness was positively
associated with ideal closeness (marginal in Study 1b). To test whether readiness uniquely
predicts more positive views of romantic closeness, we conducted two sets of multiple
regressions in which readiness predicted ideal closeness, one while controlling for fear of being
single and one while controlling for avoidant attachment. When controlling for fear of being
single, readiness uniquely, albeit marginally, predicted higher levels of ideal closeness
(           
       ). When controlling for avoidant attachment,
readiness continued to predict ideal closeness in Study 1a (     
   ) but not Study 1b (         ), although it
was trending in the predicted direction. In none of these models did fear of being single or
avoidant attachment uniquely predict ideal closeness (   ). These results provide
preliminary evidence that readiness among single individuals is uniquely associated with interest
not just in entering a romantic relationship, but also in having a close bond with a romantic
partner.
Study 2
Study 1 provided preliminary evidence from two samples that readiness is associated
with positive views of closeness in a romantic context, and that this association is more than a
fear of being alone or purely a function of avoidant tendencies. Study 2 employed a daily diary
methodology to extend these findings, examining how readiness when single predicts daily

interest in and pursuit of romantic relationships. During the diary period, participants reported
their daily readiness and how interested in a romantic relationship they were that day. We
collected multiple measures of interest, including ideal closeness with a hypothetical partner and
thinking about dating, as well as interest in forming a romantic relationship with an
idiosyncratically identified individual. Participants also reported how much they engaged in
behaviors intended to facilitate the initiation of a romantic relationship, including attention to
their appearance that day, and both general intentions to initiate a relationship and concrete
behaviors that have previously been shown to facilitate relationship initiation (Lemay & Wolf,
2016).
Methods
Participants. The sample consisted of 216 participants (135 women, 80 men, 1 not
reporting) in introductory psychology classes at a large Midwestern university in the United
States. All participants were not in a romantic relationship at the time of the intake survey. The
age of participants ranged from 18 to 24 (M = 19.32, SD = 1.26). The sample was primarily
White/Caucasian (66%), with an additional 21% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% Latino/Hispanic, 4%
Black/African American, 3% reporting multiple ethnicities, and the remaining 1% reporting
another race/ethnicity.
Procedure. This study consisted of multiple phases: an intake survey, daily diary, and
two follow-up assessments (which will be described in Study 3). Participants first completed an
online screener to determine eligibility, watched a video overview of the study procedures, and
provided informed consent. They then completed a battery of intake measures including
demographics, fear of being single, attachment avoidance, and other measures that are not
relevant to this investigation. Starting on Sunday evening and continuing for 14 evenings,

participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. All scales
were worded to ask about participants’ experiences that day. Participants were instructed not to
go back to complete missed surveys. Duplicate daily records and records completed before 8
p.m. or after 4 a.m. were deleted.
Intake Measures. We assessed fear of being single with a 3-item version of the scale
reported in Study 1 (  ) and avoidant attachment with the same 6-item scale as in Study 1
(  ).
Daily Diary Measures. Readiness was assessed with an abbreviated version of the
readiness scale (4 items;   ).
1
Information about interest in romantic relationships was
assessed in several ways: (a) dating thoughts, (b) ideal closeness, (c) interest in starting a
romantic relationship with a specific romantic “target”, and (d) confidence that such a
relationship would form. Dating thoughts were assessed with three items, developed for this
diary, about how much they thought about dating (“I thought a lot about dating today”). Items
were rated from 0 (completely disagree) to 8 (completely agree) (  ). Ideal closeness was
assessed using an adapted version of the IOS scale reported in Study 1. Participants also reported
whether there was someone they were attracted to, and subsequently, how interested they were in
forming a relationship with them and how likely they thought it was that they would enter into a
committed relationship with them on a scale from 0 (not at all likely) to 8 (very likely).
Participants also completed measures regarding relationship pursuit, including (e) how
much attention they paid to their appearance, (f) how much they behaved with the intention of
1
Readiness was also measured at intake using the same 4-item scale, worded to reflect general levels of readiness
(  ). We used the average of individuals’ daily reports because it is less influenced by an individuals’ feelings
on a given day and provides between-person estimates taken from the same reports as the within-person estimates,
thus providing a clear partition of the full variance explained by daily readiness reports (West, Ryu, Kwok, & Cham,
2011; Wickham & Knee, 2013). All “chronic” or between-person analyses in Study 2 were also run using the
baseline readiness report. The direction and significance of findings were unchanged.

facilitating a romantic relationship, and (g) whether they engaged in specific relationship
initiation behaviors. Attention to appearance was assessed with three items, created for this diary,
asking how much attention participants paid to their appearance that day (e.g., “I paid close
attention to how I dressed today.”). All responses were on a 9-point Likert-type scale from 0
(completely disagree) to 8 (agree completely) (  ). Participants also responded to a 6-item
scale, created for this diary, assessing how much their behaviors were intended to facilitate
starting a romantic relationship (e.g., “To what extent did you take steps that would facilitate
finding/furthering a romantic/dating possibility?”) on a Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all) to 8
(a lot) (  ). Finally, participants completed an 18-item scale adapted from prior research on
strategic romantic initiation behaviors (Clark et al., 1999; Lemay & Wolf, 2016; Schmitt & Buss,
1996), including subtle behaviors, like physically touching and flirting, to more overt behaviors
such as trying to kiss someone. Participants responded 1 (yes) or 0 (no) to each item, and the
total number of responses on a given day were summed (  ).
2
Results
Preliminary Analyses. We received a total of 2,634 valid daily assessments from 216
individuals during the daily diary for use in statistical analyses (on average, participants
completed 12 valid assessments). Means, standard deviations, and between-person correlations
among daily diary variables can be found in Table 2.
Daily Relationship Interest and Pursuit. We examined how daily experience of
readiness among single individuals was associated with interest in starting and maintaining a
romantic relationship, and attempts to seek or initiate a new romantic relationship. To account
2
We also scored relationship initiation behaviors as a dichotomous variable such that if a participant reported
engaging in any romantic initiation behavior that day, they were assigned a 1 and if they reported not engaging in
any romantic initiation behavior that day, they were assigned a 0. Using this scoring did not change the direction or
significance of any results.

for the non-independence of our hierarchically structured data (daily reports nested within
participants), we employed multilevel modeling using the SAS 9.4 PROC MIXED procedure,
specifying random intercepts.
Interest in a Romantic Relationship. We were first interested in whether readiness
predicts (1) the degree of interest people show in romantic relationships and (2) the actual pursuit
of a romantic relationship by engaging in behaviors that facilitate romantic relationship
initiation. Regarding relationship interest, we anticipated that this would emerge as (a) a desire
for more closeness in a hypothetical relationship and (b) thinking more about dating. We also
expected that readiness would predict (c) more interest in starting a romantic relationship with a
specific romantic “target” and (d) greater confidence that such a relationship would eventually
form. In terms of actual relationship pursuit, we expected that when participants were more
ready, they would (e) pay more attention to their appearance, (f) engage in behaviors intended to
facilitate the initiation of a relationship, and (g) engage in specific relationship initiation tactics
such as flirting or asking others out on a date.
Chronic Readiness. In the first set of models, we examined whether individuals’ chronic
readiness predicted various relationship initiation thoughts and behaviors throughout the diary
period. We thus created a ‘chronic’ measure of relationship readiness by aggregating and grand-
mean centering individuals’ readiness reports over the course of the diary. As shown in Table 3,
individuals with higher chronic levels of readiness reported higher levels of ideal closeness with
a hypothetical partner and reported thinking more about dating throughout the diary period.
Chronic readiness was also associated with more overall interest in forming a romantic
relationship with a specific individual they were attracted to, and more confidence in the
likelihood that they would start a relationship with that person. Individuals with higher chronic

levels of readiness were more likely to engage in behaviors that facilitate starting a romantic
relationship, including paying more attention to how they dress, general pursuit of a relationship,
and reporting more concrete relationship initiation behaviors.
Concurrent Daily Readiness. We next sought to test whether day-to-day fluctuations in
readiness were associated with same-day interest in and pursuit of a romantic relationship. We
thus conducted a series of models in which we regressed perceivers’ daily relationship thoughts
and behaviors on individuals’ same-day readiness. Readiness was within-person-centered, and as
such, reflects daily fluctuations in readiness relative to one’s own mean. To account for temporal
carryover in the outcome, we specified an autoregressive residual structure (Wickham & Knee,
2013). As shown in Table 4, on days when individuals reported higher readiness relative to their
own average level, they also reported higher ideal levels of closeness with a hypothetical partner,
and tended to think more about dating that day. Beyond general thoughts of dating, on days when
participants were higher in readiness, they were also more interested in forming a romantic
relationship with a specific individual, and more confident in the likelihood that they would start
a relationship with that person. Further, on days when individuals reported higher readiness
relative to their own average levels of readiness, they reported paying more attention to their
appearance, engaging in more behaviors intended to facilitate relationship initiation, including
more use of specific relationship initiation tactics.
Lagged Daily Readiness. Finally, we sought to test whether readiness on one day (Day d)
predicts changes in interest in and pursuit of romantic relationships on the next day (Day d +1).
As such, we conducted a series of analyses using a time-lagged regression approach, examining
residual change in relationship interest and pursuit by using next day’s relationship thoughts and
behaviors as the criterion (measured on Day d + 1) while controlling for today’s values on the

same variables (Day d). These analyses thus examine residualized change in interest/pursuit
across days. Readiness was again within-person centered so we could examine only the within-
person effects of readiness. Because we control for the temporal carryover in the outcome, we
specified a compound symmetric residual structure (Wickham & Knee, 2013). Hence, these
analyses examined how much today’s readiness predicts future change in tomorrow’s
relationship interest and pursuit. As shown in Table 5, when individuals reported higher
readiness on one day, they reported an increase in ideal closeness and thought more about dating
on the next day. Higher levels of readiness also predicted an increased interest in forming a
romantic relationship with a specific individual and (marginally) more confidence in the
likelihood that they would start a relationship with that person. When individuals reported higher
readiness on one day, they also exhibited an increased attention to their appearance and
marginally increased intention of starting a romantic relationship on the following day.
Readiness did not predict increase in concrete relationship initiation behaviors the following
day.
3
Alternative Explanations. We next sought to determine if readiness uniquely predicts
relationship interest and pursuit, or if these associations are driven by related constructs. To do
so, we reran the analyses examining “chronic readiness” while simultaneously controlling for
both fear of being single and avoidant attachment measured at intake (these constructs were not
assessed during the diary period, and so we cannot include them as covariates in the concurrent
or time lagged daily analyses). In these analyses, chronic readiness continued to significantly
3
In addition to lagged daily analyses in which readiness on one day predicted future changes in relationship
cognitions and pursuit the next day, we tested whether relationship cognitions and pursuit on one day predicted
changes in readiness the next day. Results indicate that although interest in a specific possible partner on one day
does not predict readiness the next day, other cognition and pursuit variables did predict change in readiness,
suggesting that attraction itself may serve as an antecedent to readiness. Full results can be found in the Online
Supplementary Materials.

predict all outcomes (  ), except for attention to appearance, which was reduced to
marginal (      ). It is worth noting that in these analyses,
avoidant attachment and fear of being single were largely unassociated with the outcomes of
interest. The only exceptions were that avoidant attachment negatively marginally predicted
attention to appearance (      ), and fear of being single
predicted both more thoughts about dating (      ) and less
confidence that they will start a relationship (      ).
Together, these analyses suggest that readiness is a construct with unique predictive power
regarding relationship interest and pursuit.
Study 3
In Studies 1 and 2, we found that readiness when single was associated with interest in
and pursuit of romantic relationships. In Study 3, we sought to examine the longitudinal
predictions of readiness on eventual relationship formation. We were specifically interested in
two aspects of relationship formation. First, we were interested in whether readiness predicts the
likelihood that individuals would enter a relationship, expecting that higher readiness when
single would predict higher likelihood of being in a romantic relationship later. Second, we were
interested in the degree to which readiness before entering a relationship was associated with
subsequent relationship qualities once an individual entered a romantic relationship. We
expected that, beyond simply facilitating the formation of a new relationship, people who were
more ready prior to entering a relationship would be more committed upon entering the
relationship. To test these hypotheses, we examined data from three independent samples in
which participants initially provided information about their readiness when single, and later
reported their relationship status at a longitudinal follow-up assessment.

Methods
Participants.
Study 3a was comprised of the 216 participants (135 women, 80 men, 1 not reporting)
described in Study 2.
Study 3b consisted of 217 undergraduates (123 women, 94 men) in an introductory
psychology class at a large Midwestern university who completed both Time 1 and Time 2
surveys in exchange for course credit. All participants included in the analyses reported not
being in a romantic relationship at Time 1. Age ranged from 18 years to 23 years (M = 19.01, SD
= 1.09). The sample was primarily White/Caucasian (77%), with 18% Asian, 3%
Latino/Hispanic, 1% Black/African American, and the remaining 1% reporting another
race/ethnicity.
Study 3c consisted of 219 students (125 women, 93 men, 1 not reporting) in an
introductory psychology class at a large Midwestern university who completed three separate
surveys over time in exchange for course credit. The Time 1 survey did not include a direct
question about whether participants were in a committed relationship or not. As such, we
considered participants to be single if they either (a) reported not dating at Time 1 (n = 208) or
(b) reported casually dating at Time 1 and also retrospectively reported at Time 2 that they were
not involved in a romantic relationship when they completed the Time 1 survey (n = 11). Age
ranged from 18 years to 35 years (M = 18.97, SD = 1.54). The sample was primarily
White/Caucasian (73%), with 17% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Black/African American, 4%
Latino/Hispanic.
Procedure.
Study 3a consisted of an intake survey, 14-day daily diary, and two follow-up

assessments. The intake and diary assessments were described in the method section of Study 2.
In the following analyses, readiness was assessed with the ‘chronic’ readiness scores derived for
each individual across their daily reports (4 items;   ).
Regarding the follow-up assessments, participants were contacted via email twice; once
roughly five weeks after intake and again three months after intake. At both time points,
participants were provided a link to a brief survey that collected information about their current
relationship status. Those who indicated being in a relationship at a given follow-up also
provided information regarding relationship dynamics, including commitment level ( 
   ), relationship satisfaction (     ), quality of
alternatives (     ), and investments in the relationship ( 
   ) using an abbreviated version of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et
al., 1998).
Studies 3b and 3c each consisted of two phases. Time 1 was conducted as part of mass
prescreen surveys collected during the first two weeks of separate fall semesters. Participants
signed up online and were shown a consent form. If they agreed to participate, they then
completed a series of questionnaires at their own pace. To measure readiness, participants in
Studies 3b and 3c read the following prompt, “The statements below concern how people feel
about committed relationships. We are interested in your general beliefs, not just how you might
feel about a current relationship in which you may be involved.” They then responded to the
same 8-items described in Studies 1a and 1b (    ). Upon
completion, they read a debriefing page and were offered credit for participation. Time 2 was a
follow-up survey collected roughly three months (Study 3b) or seven months (Study 3c) after
Time 1. Participants were contacted about completing a follow-up survey, which involved

questions about relationship status and quality. Commitment level was assessed in Studies 3b
and 3c using the full 7-item commitment subscale of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult,
Martz, & Agnew, 1998;     ). In Study 3b, we also assessed
satisfaction (5 items;   ), quality of alternatives (5 items;   ), and investments (5
items;   ). Items were rated from 0 (Do not agree at all) to 8 (Agree completely)
Results
Descriptive Statistics. In Study 3a, 213 participants completed at least one of the two
follow-ups. Two hundred twelve participants completed the 5-week follow-up and 170
completed the 3-month follow-up (169 of these participants completed both follow-ups, 43
completed the 5-week follow-up only, and one completed the 3-month follow-up only). Because
we were primarily interested in whether participants entered a relationship, we scored
participants as having entered a relationship if they reported being in a relationship at either time
point.
4
Of the 213 participants, 50 reported being in a relationship during at least one of the
follow-up surveys and 163 reported being single. Because participants in Study 3a could have
provided multiple reports of relationship qualities, for those who reported being in a relationship
at both time points, we averaged their reports across both time points to create a single score. For
those who only completed one follow-up or only reported being in a relationship at one time
point, we used their single report of relationship dynamics.
5
In Study 3b, 22 of the 217 participants reported being in a relationship at 3-months.
4
Of those participants in Study 3a who completed both 5-week and 3-month follow-up, 17 participants were single
at 5-weeks and in a relationship at 3-months, and only 7 reported being in a relationship at 5-weeks but were single
(i.e., broken up) at 3-months. Of the 43 participants who completed the 5-week follow-up but not the 3-month
follow-up, 8 were in a relationship and 35 were single.
5
Direction and significance of IDA results were unchanged when examining readiness measured at intake rather than
chronic daily readiness, or when separately examining either the 5-week or 3-month follow-ups from Study 3a rather
than the combined scores.

In Study 3c, 44 the 219 participants reported being in a relationship at 7-months.
Plan of Analysis. Because of the relatively small number of individuals who entered
relationships over the course of the studies (     ),
power within any given sample was low, especially when examining associations with
relationship quality. Accordingly, we conducted an integrative data analyses (IDA; Curran &
Hussong, 2009), a technique that allows for primary or secondary analyses of data from multiple
samples, in order to increase power and provide an overall test of hypotheses across datasets. To
conduct the IDA, we standardized predictors within their respective sample, removing sample-
level mean and variance differences. Analyses were conducted using multilevel modelling in
SAS 9.4, treating individuals as Level 1 and sample as Level 2 sources of variance.
Relationship Formation. To test whether readiness predicted likelihood of entering a
relationship, we conducted a multilevel logistic regression in which readiness at Time 1
predicted relationship status at follow-up. Results of these analyses (Table 6) revealed an overall
positive association between readiness and relationship initiation in the following months. When
examining the set of logistic regressions conducted within datasets, readiness was positively
associated with relationship initiation in Studies 3a and (marginally) 3c, but was non-significant
in Study 3b. Together, as assessed via IDA, these results suggest that feeling more ready for a
committed relationship does predict actual relationship initiation, though the lack of consistency
across studies is worth noting.
Does relationship pursuit mediate the association between readiness and relationship
formation? To test this, we turned to the Study 3a sample, the only dataset which included
measures of relationship pursuit. In these analyses, we considered both subjective intention of
facilitating a relationship and concrete relationship initiation behaviors as potential mediators. To

test mediation, we calculated the simultaneous indirect a*b effects and associated confidence
intervals using the RMediation Package (also see MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams & Lockwood,
2007). The a-paths (readiness predicting pursuit) were identical to the unstandardized
coefficients and corresponding standard errors from the multilevel models reported in Table 6.
To calculate the b-paths, we conducted a logistic regression in which chronic readiness and all
three relationship pursuit constructs were simultaneously entered as predictors of relationship
formation. The unique unstandardized coefficients and standard errors from relationship pursuit
and readiness were used for the b and c’ paths, respectively. Results from these models reveal
that the association between readiness and relationship formation was significantly mediated by
general relationship initiation intentions and marginally by concrete initiation behaviors (see
Figure 1). We also ran another model in which we included attention to appearance as a mediator
but found no association with relationship formation. Further, the direct association of readiness
remained significant in these models, indicating that active pursuit is only part of the process by
which readiness promotes relationship initiation.
Alternative Explanations. As before, we wanted to determine if readiness promotes
relationship initiation separately from fear of being single and attachment avoidance. To rule out
these explanations, we conducted a logistic regression using the data from Study 3a in which
chronic readiness, fear of being single, and attachment avoidance were simultaneously entered as
predictors (these variables were not assessed in Studies 3b or 3c). In this model, readiness
remained a significant predictor (      ) whereas fear of
being single (      ) and avoidant attachment ( 
    ) did not predict relationship initiation.
6
6
Neither fear of being single (     ) nor avoidance (     ) predicted relationship
initiation when included in a model as the only predictor of relationship initiation.

Relationship Qualities. We next sought to test whether readiness before entering a
relationship predicts the dynamics of later relationships. To do so, we first conducted a series of
IDAs in which chronic readiness when single predicted commitment, satisfaction, alternatives,
and investments at follow-up.
7
Results (Table 7) found that readiness when single was associated
with higher subsequent satisfaction, investments, and commitment, but not quality of alternatives
once an individual entered a relationship.
We then tested the role of readiness in the investment model, specifically whether
readiness predicts greater commitment via satisfaction, alternatives, and investments. To test
this, we conducted another IDA in which readiness when single, and follow-up satisfaction,
alternatives, and investments, were simultaneously entered as predictors of follow-up
commitment. We then calculated the simultaneous indirect effects and associated confidence
intervals using the RMediation Package (also see MacKinnon et al., 2007). As shown in Figure
2, although readiness when single was associated with later commitment, this association was
reduced to non-significance when controlling for the investment model variables. Tests of
indirect effects revealed that the association between readiness and later commitment was
significantly mediated by both satisfaction (     ) and investments ( 
   ). The indirect effect of quality of alternatives did not emerge as a
significant mediator (    ). These results suggest that individuals who
were more ready to form a romantic relationship were more committed to a later relationship,
specifically because they were more satisfied with and invested more into the relationship within
the first few weeks/months.
General Discussion
7
Because of the small sample sizes, we do not report the individual sample results in text. Interested readers can
find the results from individual studies in the online supplemental materials.

In the present work, we focused on the role of commitment readiness as a precursor to
relationship formation. We examined how readiness among individuals not in romantic
relationships shapes both cognitions and self-reported behavior related to relationship formation.
Study 1 provided preliminary support from two cross-sectional samples, finding that readiness
among single individuals was associated with higher ideal levels of closeness with a romantic
partner. Study 2 provided a more rigorous test, using a daily diary to establish that readiness was
associated with a variety of relationship pursuit cognitions and behaviors both overall (i.e.,
chronically) and from day to day, including higher ideal closeness, more consideration of dating
in general, and more interest in dating a specific individual they were attracted to in their real
life. Study 2 also found that readiness was associated with daily relationship pursuit behaviors,
including attention to one’s appearance, behaving with the intention to form a relationship, and
with more overall use of relationship initiation tactics (e.g., flirting, physical touch). Importantly,
Study 2 also provided evidence that readiness on one day predicts increases in relationship
interest (ideal closeness, dating consideration, interest) and pursuit behaviors (attention to
appearance and intentions, but not concrete behaviors) on the next day.
Beyond pursuit of relationships, we found in Study 3 that feeling more ready for a
committed relationship was associated with a higher likelihood that one would enter a romantic
relationship within the following months, and higher commitment among those who entered
relationships. Although active relationship pursuit (both intentions and concrete behaviors)
mediated this association in Study 3a, a significant direct association remained between
readiness when single and later relationship formation. We can only speculate as to what other
mechanisms may be at play. However, in accordance with RRT [Citations removed for masked
review], we believe that in addition to promoting such “active” pursuit, individuals who are more

ready for a relationship might also be more passively open or receptive to a relationship in
general. For example, they might pay more attention to potential dating partners or be more
likely to agree to going out on dates. In other words, even if the individuals themselves do not
engage in active pursuit, they may react more positively if another individual expresses romantic
interest toward them. Future research might fruitfully explore this mechanism, with a focus on
the various ways that individuals respond to others’ advances or overtures toward developing a
romantic bond. This raises another interesting point: that there are also many situational
components likely at play that our research design could not capture. For instance, forming a
romantic relationship is fundamentally a dyadic process in which another person must willingly
participate. If an individual feels they are ready for a relationship, but is in a thin dating pool or
is of low perceived mate-value, readiness might not be as strongly tied to eventual relationship
formation.
Findings from Study 3 further suggest that readiness prior to entering a relationship has
implications for the functioning of future relationships. We found that individuals who were
more ready while single experienced higher satisfaction with and invested more into a later
relationship than those who were less ready, which in turn predicted higher commitment to that
later relationship. Although the present data cannot speak directly to the ultimate stability of
these relationships, commitment has been firmly established as a robust predictor of a host of
relationship maintenance behaviors (Rusbult & Agnew, 2010) and ultimately relationship
stability (Agnew & VanderDrift, 2015; Le & Agnew, 2003; Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, Mutso,
2010). As such, the present research indirectly suggests that the extent to which one is ready for
a committed relationship before entering a relationship may have real implications for that
individuals’ ability or desire to maintain that relationship. This dovetails with other recent

research which found that readiness while in a relationship bolstered the ultimate effect of
commitment on relationship stability [Citations removed for masked review]. The current
research adds a valuable component to this finding, extending our empirical knowledge of
readiness prior to being in a relationship.
Notably, readiness continued to predict both relationship pursuit and eventual
relationship formation when controlling for avoidant attachment and fear of being single, which
speaks to the unique nature of readiness as a construct. That is, the present findings extend
existing literature which suggests that people have varying levels to which they seek
interdependence. Why is (lack of) readiness distinct from discomfort with intimacy (i.e., low
avoidance) or fear of being single? To distinguish these constructs, we return to the central tenet
of RRT, that timing matters in relationships. That is, readiness denotes feeling particularly able
to handle relationships at a given point in time. Whereas avoidant attachment reflects an overall
aversion to and discomfort with intimacy in general, feeling unready does not necessarily denote
such negative models of relationships. Similarly, readiness does not necessarily entail an anxiety
about being single. Rather, the degree to which an individual feels ready or not is likely based on
a holistic assessment that one is prepared or “has what it takes” at a given time, and that their
life-situation is currently perceived as amenable to maintaining a committed relationship. As
such, an individual who is both ready and single does not necessarily feel anxiety over their
relationship status nor does an individual low in readiness necessarily dislike close emotional
ties.
Given the importance of readiness suggested in the current research, understanding the
development of readiness and the antecedents underlying readiness are also of interest. As noted
in the introduction, readiness is likely to emerge from a confluence of dispositional,

developmental, and contextual factors. For instance, individuals who have a history of
unfulfilling or demanding relationships may feel chronically unready for a new committed
relationship, while individuals who recently experienced a negative breakup or who anticipate
moving to a new city/state/country in the near future may more temporarily feel unready to begin
a committed relationship. Situational and dispositional factors may also interact to predict
readiness; for example, someone who was recently cheated on by a partner may need longer to
start a new relationship to the extent that they are higher in attachment avoidance. Additionally,
the antecedents underlying readiness may also be important for various outcomes. For instance,
individuals may feel highly ready for a commitment because they understand, from experience
and self-reflection, what a relationship needs to survive and feel capable of sustaining such a
commitment. Upon entering a relationship, they may not react negatively when they find that the
relationship requires effort to balance their own and their partner’s needs (Kumashiro, Rusbult,
& Finkel, 2008) or that their new partner does not perfectly match their ideals (Fletcher &
Simpson, 2000; Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001). On the other hand, an
individual who thinks they are ready for a relationship but fundamentally does not understand
what is required for a relationship to succeed may not be able to cope with or successfully
navigate such challenges. Future research may thus also seek to explore the antecedents of
readiness, and whether these antecedents influence the degree to which feelings of readiness
underlies people’s experiences upon entering a relationship.
It is also worth noting that in Study 2, reverse temporal analyses described in Footnote 3
(and in the OSM) found that some relational cognitions and pursuit variables assessed on one
day predicted increases in readiness the next day, suggesting a bi-directional association between
readiness and relational cognitions/behaviors. Further, in Study 3a, only two of the 51

participants who reported not being attracted to anyone at intake entered a relationship
(compared to 49 of the 162 participants who reported being attracted to someone). Although not
altogether surprising that individuals with no appealing dating options by-and-large do not start
relationships, it does mean that in the data presented, readiness predicted relationship initiation
only among those who could identify a potential dating target. Together, these findings appear to
suggest that attraction and other relational cognitions (e.g., pursuit behaviors) likely serve as
indicators for people’s perceptions of their own readiness, just as readiness contributes to more
positive relational evaluations and pursuit. That is, simply finding oneself considering dating
options may influence how ready an individual feels for a committed relationship. However,
because we did not collect information about who participants ultimately began dating, we
cannot determine if people who are more ready are more likely to enter a relationship generally,
and not just with a specific person (or persons) they had in mind. That is, although possible that
individuals base their own readiness assessment on their general orientation toward romantic
relationships, and finding oneself considering others to be attractive is a signal that one is ready,
it is also possible that readiness is partially a function of an imagined relationship with a
particular, real person, and only predicts outcomes specific to that potential relationship. In either
case, however, readiness plays a role in predicting relationship initiation.
8
Limitations, Constraints on Generality, and Future Directions
The present research also has several limitations that are worth noting. First, the measure
of readiness we used is rather broad and unidimensional, whereas readiness is likely a richer
construct than our current measure captures. Future theoretical and empirical research should
8
Readiness continues to predict relationship initiation in Study 3a when including how frequently a participant had a
potential romantic partner in mind during the nightly survey period. There is no interaction between the two
variables. See online supplementary materials for full overview and results.

delve deeper into the subjective experience of commitment readiness. For instance, readiness
may be composed of separate components related to ability (e.g., relational preparedness,
relational efficacy, etc.) that each play unique roles in shaping relational outcomes. Second,
although Study 2 established temporal precedence, both with time lagged daily analyses
predicting relationship interest and pursuit, as well as longitudinal predictions of relationship
formation, we cannot completely rule out the existence of other variables that might account for
the observed associations.
It should also be noted that the data presented here were only obtained from individuals
currently not involved in a romantic relationship. Thus, the findings with respect to readiness
cannot necessarily be generalized to suggest they are applicable or have relevance to
understanding relational processes among those who are currently involved. However, additional
recent work has examined readiness within the context of ongoing involvements and it also
appears to play a significant role in accounting for both relationship maintenance and stability
(Citation removed for masked review).
Finally, relationship formation requires two interested parties, whereas the present
research focused solely on the individual. Other designs, such as speed dating designs (Finkel &
Eastwick, 2008), might allow researchers to examine how readiness in two individuals matters
for eventual relationship formation. Relationship initiation and success may best be determined
by potential partners who are both highly ready. Speed-dating (or other in-lab paradigms) would
also allow for direct observation of behavior. These designs would be particularly powerful for
determining the mechanisms by which readiness promotes relationship initiation, including
active strategies and more passive receptivity. For instance, in-lab observations would allow
researchers to understand how readiness shapes attention or reactions to romantic overtures.

Conclusion
Feeling ready for a committed romantic relationship matters. The current results found
that feeling ready for a relationship while single shapes individuals’ relationship pursuit and the
likelihood of future relationship initiation. Beyond relationship formation, the present research
also found that readiness before entering a relationship is associated with higher satisfaction,
investments, and commitment to future relationships. This research thus provides the first
empirical evidence that readiness among single individuals is a meaningful construct that shapes
both future relationship formation and later relationship dynamics. This work ultimately expands
upon the foundation of RRT, emphasizing the importance of perceived timing in successful
relationship development and maintenance.

References
Agnew, C. R., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2015). Relationship maintenance and dissolution. In M.
Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of
personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 581-604).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Aron, A., Aron E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure
of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Aron, A., Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., & Iverson, A. (1989). Experiences of falling in love.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243-257.
Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N.
(2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101-132.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative
components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1190-1203.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic
Books.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested

in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M. (1994). Evolution of desire: Strategies for human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological
Review, 90, 105-126.
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic
relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707-720.
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of
multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81-100.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2008). Speed-dating. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17, 193-197.
Fletcher, G. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure
and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102-105.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in
Close Relationships-Relationships Structures questionnaire: A method for assessing
attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615-625.
Garapick, J. (2013). Eight signs you may not be ready for a relationship [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://www.eharmony.com/dating-advice/about-you/eight-signs-you-may-not-be-
ready-for-a-relationship/#.WXTxCYgrJPY
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Faingataa, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Happily single: The link
between relationship status and well-being depends on avoidance and approach social
goals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 122-130.

Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex
Research, 31, 185-201.
Gunther (2016). 10 questions to help you tell if you're ready to commit [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201602/10-questions-
help-you-tell-if-youre-ready-commit
Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates
associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the
temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
18, 42-58.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a
meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7, 1-20.
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners
as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 967-980.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit
theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808-819.
Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Navigating personal and relational
concerns: The quest for equilibrium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
94-110.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of

the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital
romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17,
377-390.
Lemay, E. P., & Wolf, N. R. (2016). Projection of romantic and sexual desire in opposite-sex
friendships: How wishful thinking creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 864-878.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the
product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODLIN. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 384-389.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship
maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 174-179.
Mashek, D. J., & Sherman, M. D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with intimate others. In D. J.
Mashek, A. P. Aron, D. J. Mashek, A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 343-356). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to
alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758-766.
Miller, R. S. (2003). On being admired but overlooked: Reflections on 'attention to alternatives'
in close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 284-288.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C. (2005). The transtheoretical approach. In J. C. Norcross &
M. R. Goldfried (eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration, 2nd ed. (pp. 147-171).
New York: Oxford University Press.

Riela, S., Rodriguez, G., Aron, A., Xu, X., & Acevado, B. P. (2010). Experiences of falling in
love: Investigating culture, ethnicity, gender, and speed. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 473-493.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.
Rusbult, C. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2010). Prosocial motivation and behavior in close relationships.
In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives,
emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 327-345). Washington, DC,
US: American Psychological Association.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment Model of Commitment
Processes. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook
of theories of social psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 218-231). Los Angeles: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.
Sama, J. M. (2014). 10 ways to know you’re ready for a relationship [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-michael-sama/10-ways-to-know-youre-
rea_b_5316997.html
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex
and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
Shaver P. R., Mikulincer M. (2005). Attachment theory and research: Resurrection of the
psychodynamic approach to personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 22–45.
Shaver P. R., Mikulincer M. (2007). Attachment theory and research: Core concepts, basic
principles, conceptual bridges. In Kruglanski A. W., Higgins E. T., Kruglanski A. W.,
Higgins E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 650–
677). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E.
A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105, 1049-1073.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
West, S. G., Ryu, E., Kwok, O., & Cham, H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Current and future
applications in personality research. Journal of Personality, 79, 2-50.
Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2013). Examining temporal processes in diary studies.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1184-1198.

Table 1.
Zero-Order Correlations Among Study Variables (Study 1)
Study 1a
Study 1b
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1. Readiness
4.19
(2.69)
4.77
(1.81)
2. Fear of Being Single
.27**
2.74
(1.09)
.23***
3.01
(0.95)
3. Avoidant Attachment
-.23*
.12
3.56
(1.32)
-.25***
-.14*
3.62
(1.32)
4. Ideal Closeness
.24*
.19†
.00
4.96
(1.62)
.11†
.01
-.04
4.83
(1.16)
† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Note. Means (SD) along the diagonals

Table 2.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Between-Person Correlations Among All Study Variables (Study 2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
Readiness
4.66
(2.09)
2.
Fear of Being
Single
.23***
3.58
(1.44)
3.
Avoidant
Attachment
-.08
.08
3.52
(1.22)
4.
Ideal Closeness
.36***
.13†
.001
4.46
(1.26)
5.
Thoughts about
Dating
.53***
.34***
-.09
.23***
2.66
(1.69)
6.
Interest in a
Relationship
.55***
.21**
-.10
.27***
.52***
4.98
(1.80)
7.
Likelihood of a
Relationship
.34***
-.11
-.05
.14†
.35***
.58***
2.63
(2.09)
8.
Attention to
Appearance
.15*
.12†
-.10
.05
.43***
.15*
.02
3.51
(1.56)
9.
Initiation
Intentions
.42***
.15*
-.04
.13
.74***
.55***
.62***
.29***
2.05
(1.74)
10.
Initiation
Behaviors
.34***
.13†
.07
.11
.57***
.43***
.43***
.29***
.65***
1.39
(1.99)
†<.10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Note. Means (SD) along the diagonal

Table 3
Chronic Readiness Predicting Daily Relationship Cognitions and Pursuit (Study 2)
b


Relationship Cognitions
Ideal Closeness
.21
[.13, .29]
<.001
Thoughts about Dating
.43
[.34, .52]
<.001
Interest in a Relationship
.50
[.40, .60]
<.001
Likelihood of a Relationship
.34
[.20, .48]
<.001
Relationship Pursuit
Attention to Appearance
.12
[.02, .21]
.014
Initiation Intentions
.34
[.24, .44]
<.001
Initiation Behaviors
.31
[.20, .42]
<.001
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings in bold.

Table 4
Concurrent Daily Readiness Predicting Daily Relationship Cognitions and Pursuit (Study 2)
b


Relationship Cognitions
Ideal Closeness
.08
[.05, .11]
<.001
Thoughts about Dating
.40
[.34, .45]
<.001
Interest in a Relationship
.33
[.26, .41]
<.001
Likelihood of a Relationship
.24
[.17, .31]
<.001
Relationship Pursuit
Attention to Appearance
.21
[.13, .30]
<.001
Initiation Intentions
.27
[.22, .33]
<.001
Initiation Behaviors
.30
[.21, .39]
<.001
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings in bold.

Table 5
Daily Readiness (Day d) Predicting Residualized Next-Day Relationship Cognitions and Pursuit (Day d+1) (Study 2)
b


Relationship Cognitions
Ideal Closeness
.04
[.01, .07]
.004
Thoughts about Dating
.15
[.08, .22]
<.001
Interest in a Relationship
.16
[.07, .25]
<.001
Likelihood of a Relationship
.08
[-.005, .17]
.063
Relationship Pursuit
Attention to Appearance
.10
[.01, .19]
.039
Initiation Intentions
.06
[-.01, .13]
.078
Initiation Behaviors
.06
[-.04, .16]
.254
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings in bold. All associations also control for the criterion on Day d.

Readiness and Relationship Formation 46
Table 6
Readiness Predicting Likelihood of Being in a Romantic Relationship at Follow-up (Study 3)
N
Mean
(Std)
Logistic Regression
Single
Coupled
Single
Coupled
OR



Study 3a
160
50
4.35
(2.08)
5.70
(1.77)
1.43
[1.19, 1.72]
.41
<.001
Study 3b
195
22
4.65
(1.76)
4.58
(1.57)
.98
[.62, 1.49]
-.02
.844
Study 3c
174
44
4.20
(1.83)
4.72
(1.70)
1.18
[.98, 1.42]
.16
.088
IDA
529
116
-.06
(1.01)
.29
(0.91)
1.46
[1.18, 1.81]
.38
<.001
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings in bold

Readiness and Relationship Formation 47
Table 7
Readiness When Single Predicting Later Dynamics of Relationships Using IDA
Analyses (Study 3)
b


Commitment
.48
[.19, .78]
.002
Satisfaction
.38
[.04, .73]
.031
Alternatives
-.34
[-.77, .10]
.124
Investments
.75
[.34, 1.16]
<.001
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings in bold. Individual study results in
italics.

Readiness and Relationship Formation 48
Figure 1. Readiness when single predicting relationship formation via relationship pursuit (Study 3a).

Readiness and Relationship Formation 49
Figure 2. Readiness when single (at Time 1) predicting commitment level (at Time 2) via the investment
model (at Time 2) (Study 3). The a paths are reported in Table 7.