Skip to content
Delete Learn

2.5 From Attraction to Relationship

You’ve met someone you’re attracted to. There’s mutual interest. Now what?

The transition from attraction to relationship isn’t automatic. Many promising connections fizzle. Others that seemed unpromising develop into lasting partnerships. Research reveals what differentiates the connections that become relationships from those that don’t.

The Stages of Relationship Formation

Research suggests relationships develop through predictable stages, though the boundaries are fluid:[1]

1. Awareness

One or both parties notice the other. Initial attraction (physical, situational, or social) creates interest. This can happen in person, through friends, or via dating apps.

2. Initial Contact

First interaction—a conversation, a date, exchanged messages. First impressions form, though they’re often revised later.

3. Surface Contact

Early dating. Conversations stay relatively safe—interests, backgrounds, opinions on non-threatening topics. Each person tests whether continued interaction is worthwhile.

4. Mutuality

Increasing self-disclosure. Partners share vulnerabilities, fears, hopes. The relationship develops unique patterns and inside jokes. Commitment begins to form.

5. Interdependence

Lives become intertwined. Partners rely on each other, plan together, integrate social networks. The relationship becomes central to both identities.

Not all connections progress through all stages. Most filter out at surface contact. The question is: what determines progression?

Self-Disclosure: The Engine of Intimacy

One of the most robust findings in relationship science: self-disclosure drives intimacy.[2]

Self-disclosure means revealing personal information—thoughts, feelings, experiences, vulnerabilities—that isn’t publicly known. Research shows:

  • Reciprocity: Disclosure begets disclosure. When one person opens up, the other tends to reciprocate.
  • Gradual escalation: Healthy relationships involve progressively deeper disclosure over time.
  • Vulnerability builds trust: Sharing something risky and having it received well creates bonding.

A landmark study had strangers answer 36 increasingly personal questions, then stare into each other’s eyes for four minutes.[3] The result: participants reported feeling closer to their partner than to 30% of their other relationships—after just 45 minutes.

The implication: intimacy isn’t magic. It’s produced by structured vulnerability exchange. The 36-question study worked because it artificially accelerated what happens naturally in developing relationships.

The disclosure sweet spot

Too much, too soon backfires. Research shows:[2]

  • Premature deep disclosure creates discomfort
  • Disclosure should match the relationship stage
  • Context matters—what’s appropriate on date 10 isn’t on date 1

The goal is gradual reciprocal escalation—each partner taking turns revealing slightly more, testing whether the other will receive it well.

Uncertainty Reduction

When you meet someone new, you face uncertainty about who they are and how they’ll behave. Uncertainty reduction theory suggests relationships form as uncertainty decreases.[4]

Three strategies for reducing uncertainty:

Passive strategies

Observing without interaction—watching how they behave with others, checking their social media, gathering information indirectly.

Active strategies

Seeking information from third parties—asking mutual friends about them, researching their background.

Interactive strategies

Direct communication—asking questions, engaging in conversation, observing responses to your own disclosures.

Research shows interactive strategies are most effective for uncertainty reduction—and for relationship formation. The conversations themselves build the connection.[4]

Predicted outcome value

People don’t just reduce uncertainty—they use new information to predict whether future interaction will be rewarding.[5]

If uncertainty reduction reveals:

  • Shared values, interests, humor → predicted outcome positive → more interaction sought
  • Incompatibilities, red flags, boredom → predicted outcome negative → interaction declines

Early dating is essentially a mutual prediction process. Both parties gather information to forecast relationship potential.

What Predicts Moving Forward?

Research identifies several factors that predict which initial connections develop into relationships:

Reciprocal liking

Simply put: knowing someone likes you increases your liking of them.[6] This “reciprocity of attraction” is one of the strongest predictors of relationship formation.

A meta-analysis found that perceived liking from a potential partner is among the strongest predictors of attraction—often stronger than the partner’s actual characteristics.[6]

This creates a positive feedback loop in successful connections: expressed interest increases attraction, which encourages more expressed interest.

Responsiveness

Perceived partner responsiveness—feeling that your partner understands you, values you, and cares about your well-being—strongly predicts relationship development.[7]

Responsiveness involves:

  • Understanding: They “get” you
  • Validation: They respect your perspective
  • Care: They act in your interest

Research shows responsiveness is particularly powerful during self-disclosure. When you share something vulnerable and your partner responds responsively, intimacy grows rapidly.[7]

Positive interactions

Early positive experiences build momentum. Research on married couples looking back at their courtship found that positive first meetings predicted relationship satisfaction years later.[8]

Positive interactions include:

  • Shared laughter
  • Feeling heard
  • Discovering similarities
  • Experiencing enjoyment together

Each positive interaction increases the probability of another. Each negative interaction does the opposite.

Investment

As relationships develop, partners invest time, energy, and resources. The investment model shows that these investments increase commitment—partly because leaving would mean losing what’s been invested.[9]

Even small early investments (planning a date, remembering details, introducing to friends) signal and create commitment.

First Date Dynamics

The first date is a critical transition point. Research reveals what matters:

What predicts a second date?

A speed-dating study found these factors predicted mutual interest:[10]

  • Physical attractiveness (strongest predictor for both sexes)
  • Perceived chemistry in conversation
  • Perceived similarities
  • Feeling comfortable

Interestingly, objective similarity (having the same answers on questionnaires) didn’t predict attraction. Perceived similarity—feeling like you’re alike—did.

Conversation dynamics

How the conversation flows matters. Research shows:[11]

  • Questions predict interest: People who ask more questions are liked more
  • Follow-up questions especially: They signal listening and engagement
  • Balance matters: Conversations that feel mutual (vs. one-sided) predict more interest

A study analyzing speed-dating conversations found that asking follow-up questions was particularly effective at increasing partner’s liking.[11]

Authenticity vs. impression management

Everyone engages in some impression management on first dates. But research suggests authenticity predicts better outcomes.[12]

Authentic self-presentation:

  • Increases liking (people can detect genuine vs. performed behavior)
  • Attracts compatible partners (who like the real you)
  • Sets sustainable expectations (you can maintain being yourself)

The tension: early dating rewards some impression management, but too much creates relationships built on false premises.

Attachment Patterns in Relationship Formation

Attachment style affects how relationships form:[13]

Secure attachment

  • Comfortable with closeness and autonomy
  • Disclose appropriately
  • Interpret partner behavior positively
  • Form relationships more easily

Anxious attachment

  • Fear rejection, seek reassurance
  • May disclose too much too soon
  • Interpret ambiguity negatively
  • Form relationships, but with more anxiety

Avoidant attachment

  • Uncomfortable with closeness
  • Disclose less
  • Maintain emotional distance
  • Take longer to commit, or avoid commitment

These patterns affect both how you approach new connections and who you’re attracted to. Anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals often find each other—creating the push-pull dynamics that feel like “chemistry” but predict relationship problems.[13]

The Role of Time

Relationship formation takes time—but how much?

Too fast

Moving too quickly can mean:[14]

  • Insufficient information for good decisions
  • Idealization replacing realistic assessment
  • Ignoring red flags due to limerence
  • Committing before knowing true compatibility

Too slow

Moving too slowly risks:[14]

  • Losing momentum
  • Friendship zone (insufficient romantic energy)
  • Building unrealistic expectations through fantasy
  • Missing windows of opportunity

Research suggests healthy relationships develop over months, not days or years. The specific timeline varies, but relationships that progress to commitment within 6-18 months tend to have better outcomes than those that rush or drag.[14]

From Dating to Commitment

What marks the transition from “dating” to “relationship”?

The DTR conversation

“Define the Relationship” conversations are a modern ritual. Research shows:[15]

  • Most couples have explicit conversations about relationship status
  • These conversations typically occur 1-4 months into dating
  • Timing matters—too early feels premature, too late creates anxiety
  • The conversation itself signals and creates commitment

Markers of commitment

Research identifies behaviors that signal relationship formation:[9]

  • Exclusivity: Stopping other dating
  • Introduction: Meeting each other’s friends/family
  • Future talk: Making plans together
  • Investment: Time, energy, and resources directed to the relationship
  • Identity integration: “We” language, seeing yourselves as a couple

What makes commitment happen?

The investment model identifies three factors that predict commitment:[9]

  1. Satisfaction: How happy are you with the relationship?
  2. Alternatives: How attractive are your other options?
  3. Investment: How much have you put in?

High satisfaction + low alternatives + high investment = commitment.

This explains why people stay in unsatisfying relationships (high investment) and leave satisfying ones (attractive alternatives). Commitment isn’t just about how good the relationship is—it’s about the total equation.

Warning Signs in Relationship Formation

Not every attraction should become a relationship. Research identifies early warning signs:[16]

Red flags

  • Inconsistent behavior (hot and cold)
  • Pressure for quick commitment
  • Disrespect for boundaries
  • Contempt or criticism early on
  • Significant values conflicts
  • Avoidance of self-disclosure
  • Only interested when convenient

Yellow flags

  • Different relationship timelines
  • Major lifestyle incompatibilities
  • Significantly different communication styles
  • Unresolved previous relationships
  • Excessive focus on appearance over substance

The early phase is for assessment. Ignoring warning signs because of attraction is a recipe for problems.

The Bottom Line

Attraction is the beginning, not the destination. The transition from attraction to relationship requires:

  • Self-disclosure: Gradually sharing and receiving vulnerability
  • Uncertainty reduction: Learning enough to predict a positive future
  • Reciprocal liking: Mutual interest that feeds itself
  • Responsiveness: Feeling understood, validated, cared for
  • Positive interactions: Building momentum through good experiences
  • Time: Enough to assess realistically, not so much that momentum dies

The couples who successfully transition from attraction to relationship aren’t the ones with the strongest initial chemistry. They’re the ones who build connection through structured vulnerability, respond well to each other’s disclosures, and give the relationship enough time to develop without rushing or stalling.

Initial attraction gets you in the door. What you build together determines whether you stay.

References

  1. Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2005). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Pearson

  2. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475. PubMed

  3. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363-377. Sage

  4. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112. Oxford

  5. Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 3-33. Oxford

  6. Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 477-498. Wiley

  7. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 201-225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410610010

  8. Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237-252. PubMed

  9. 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(4), 357-387. Wiley

  10. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264. PubMed

  11. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430-452. PubMed

  12. Human, L. J., Biesanz, J. C., Parisotto, K. L., & Dunn, E. W. (2012). Your best self helps reveal your true self: Positive self-presentation leads to more accurate personality impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(1), 23-30. Sage

  13. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. PubMed

  14. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499-509. Wiley

  15. Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 469-493. Oxford

  16. Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697-1711. PubMed