Laura V. Machia’s research while affiliated with Syracuse University and other places

In the current work, consisting of 1 correlational study and 1 experiment (N = 534), we examined the societal acceptability of different reasons for being single and investigated whether there are differences in perceptions of single adults depending on the reason that they are single. In Study 1, we found that reasons for being single vary regarding how acceptable they are considered by others. Drawing on the stereotype content model, in Study 2, we found that a person’s reason for being single affects how others perceive them; specifically, we found that the reason a person is single appears to affect the extent to which they are perceived as warm, competent, and lonely. We also considered whether gender affected perceived competence, warmth, loneliness, and depression, but we did not find any significant gender differences. Our findings suggest that the reason a person is single affects how others perceive them. This work adds to the growing literature on singlehood by identifying that certain forms of singlehood may be seen as more acceptable and thus less likely to elicit negative responses from others.

In romantic relationships, people’s self-concepts (i.e., a person’s conceptualization of themselves) change. They expand to incorporate partners’ characteristics and contract to eliminate no longer relevant self-characteristics. This process is a sign that a couple is growing closer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, not all incorporated characteristics are positive. Some individuals are more likely to have selves that expand to incorporate negative characteristics, and as such they engage in the process of self-adulteration. As a result, they may fail to reap the positive outcomes of self-concept change. In one study and a direct replication (total N = 821), we predicted and found that people high in attachment anxiety are more likely to perceive greater self-adulteration in their relationship. In a third longitudinal study ( N = 122), we found people high in attachment anxiety at Time 1 perceived greater self-adulteration at Time 2.

We introduce a model of relationship commitment regulation, which describes how romantic partners might use empirically‐validated antecedents of commitment level strategically to influence a partner's commitment toward their relationship based on certain commitment goals they have for the relationship. People are generally aware of and relatively accurate with respect to knowing their partner's level of commitment and also have preferences regarding their desired level. We summarize key antecedents of commitment level (i.e., satisfaction level, alternative quality, investment size, future plans, and subjective norms) and then describe how each can be manipulated via relationship maintenance activities to move a partner's commitment level up or down, or maintained at a desired current level. Collectively, the model provides a strategic roadmap for actions one can take to foster desired commitment in one's partner and provides insight into the dyadic processes and outcomes of relationship maintenance.

Cultural, political, and legal changes in the 21st century have changed the landscapes in which our close interpersonal relationships take place. Many choose to remain single or get married later. Online dating and cohabitation are more readily accepted and common. Our friendships, especially on social media, have gained importance. Issues surrounding gender identity, equity, and sexual orientation also loom large. With the help of technology, more couples, including same-sex couples, are now able to become parents. From same-sex to open and polyamorous marriages, how we define and perceive some of our most important close relationships have changed. The dissolution and reformation of partnerships and families have gained new importance as nontraditional families have become more common. The formation of families through adoption raises questions of identity and successful parenting. Relationships across cultural, racial, religious, and national lines are also more relevant in today’s pluralistic societies. Finally, what types of relationships are considered worthy of scholarly and scientific attention, and the lenses with which to study them, have also evolved. This volume compiles the latest research and theory on close relationships of the 21st century from multidisciplinary and international perspectives with the intent of taking stock of this shifting terrain.

Investment—the feeling that one has put considerable resources into a relationship—is theorized to play a key role in relationship persistence. Yet, the development of investment is not well-understood. We recruited 256 individuals in new dating relationships and surveyed them each week for up to 25 weeks. This design allows us to test underlying theoretical assumptions about how people become invested in new dating partners. Some assumptions, such as the idea that investment increases over time, were confirmed. Other assumptions were not supported: Feelings of investment were quite high after only a few weeks of dating and were not strongly shaped by concrete relationship milestones. Rather, feelings of investment were strongly linked to other subjective indicators of relationship development, such as feeling attached to the partner and believing that the relationship had a good future. We discuss the implications of these findings for existing models of investment.

In the current work, we adapt the investment model of commitment processes for single adults. Across two cross‐sectional studies using undergraduate and internet samples (total N = 647), we tested whether the same factors that predict relationship commitment (investment, satisfaction, and quality of alternatives) also predict commitment to singlehood. In line with this theoretical model, we found that singlehood satisfaction and investment in singlehood were each positively associated with commitment to singlehood, whereas the quality of alternatives to singlehood was negatively associated with commitment to singlehood. We also found that a person's expected satisfaction and planned investment were each associated with commitment to singlehood, whereas subjective norms were not associated with commitment to singlehood. In addition, we tested whether commitment to singlehood was positively associated with well‐being, but these associations were nonsignificant. Our findings provide initial evidence for the appropriateness of the investment model for understanding commitment to being single.

At its core, romantic relationship status is binary (i.e., one is either single or partnered). However, many people often do not describe their status using this dichotomy. As such, we establish the construct perceived relationship status (PRS; the extent to which a person perceives themself as single versus partnered), and we demonstrate that people’s actual relationship status (ARS) and PRS are not always in alignment. In the current preregistered study, 150 participants reported their PRS across 27 hypothetical pre- and post-establishing exclusivity scenarios. We found considerable variation in PRS for every scenario, indicating that PRS is in fact distinct from ARS and is influenced by context for most people. Additionally, for the post-establishing exclusivity scenarios, the results of two repeated measures ANOVAs revealed that participants reported being significantly more single in certain intradyadic and social contexts than others. We also used this scenario data to qualitatively identify five distinct Consistent and Inconsistent profiles based on the nature of participants’ PRS-ARS misalignment. Lastly, we explored increased acceptance of infidelity as a potential outcome of the PRS-ARS misalignment within the context of the bachelor party, but our results did not indicate a significant association between the two. The implications of these findings and the need for future PRS research are discussed.