I recently came across this article from Harry Reis in Personal Relationships called Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. The title immediately caught my attention, as I wondered where this discipline of relationship science was headed and what we need to do to make this a more mature discipline. (I know…geeky that this is what catches my attention these days, but what can I say). Among his recommendations, Reis emphasizes the need for research to be developed in the context of theories. I like this sentence, “A ripened relationship science will look more like a spider web of theories and findings and less like a laundry list of topics, studies, and findings.”

Reis further recommends developing “central organizing principles” of relationship science, referencing grand unified theories in other disciplines like quantum physics and cosmology. I love the idea of a grand unified theory of relationships, something that takes disparate ideas and puts them together into some spider-web-like organizational structure – a way to find strings within each of these studies and tie them together. Does such a grand unified theory exist? I hope so.

I think Reis’ words speak to what I struggle with in my own research ideals. There are so many contradictory findings and results, each dependent on specific criteria, with specific samples, with individuals often differing on the meaning they assign to specific events in their lives. When you come up with one idea to help improve relationships, for example, you can often think of many situations where it won’t work. I heard criticism about my own research yesterday, suggesting that relational interventions can often ignore external stressors. After all, spending focused time to develop one’s marital relationship through interventions or in couple’s therapy can be a luxury to a couple balancing multiple jobs, struggling to pay the bills.

So how can we make sense of relational needs when individuals seem to be so different? In this article, Reis gives an interesting example of a central organizing principle, blending several aspects of work under the umbrella of perceived partner responsiveness. Things like intimacy, social support, acceptance, sense of belonging are all affected by your own perceptions of your partner’s ability to respond to your needs – to make you feel understood, validated, and cared for. (As I’m trying to summarize a complex idea into a short paragraph, please read this article for more detail about perceived partner responsiveness).

This made me think about other ideas. Perhaps needs of all relationships are not the same. Maybe this organizing principle can be placed in a grander theory. What are our relational needs? Thinking about this brought back the idea of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a concept I learned early in my education, suggesting that there are various levels of human needs. Once your lowest-level physiological needs are met, you move on to the next stage, and so forth (see figure).

Perhaps there’s a hierarchy of relational needs. Building off of Maslow’s ideals, perhaps unions are made first for survival (the ability to gather more food). Evolutionary theory suggests that we choose mates that will help us survive and produce healthy offspring in future generations. Then comes safety, perhaps explaining unions of different tribes or families to create protection from competing tribes. Belonging – finding love, intimacy, passion, satisfaction – with this stage we want more than peace and survival, we want happiness and positive feelings. Maybe this is where relationships have been over the last several decades. And as we as a society move beyond that stage, we look for esteem from ourselves and from others. I suppose this where Reis’ ideas of being understood and validated come in. And then the last stage is self-actualization – finding a partner who makes you better than yourself, being able to realize your potential or purpose as individuals and as a couple.

It’s possible that as a society and as a discipline we move towards these various stages of relational attainment, needing to fulfill lower stages of needs before we move forward with more advanced stages. Perhaps these needs apply to all relationships, including friendships and parental relationships. This may explain why when financial stressors and putting food on the table are problems, we focus on survival instead of personal or relationship happiness. Or it may explain why we need a safe and loving environment before we can seek validation and self-actualization.

Just some thoughts from a relationship scientist looking to make sense of the vast web of findings that are out there. And while this may not be the grand theory to end all theories, I hope it’s at least a step in the right direction.