The Close Relationships Laboratory at the University of Georgia explores the science of social connection
Having close relationships with others is a central human experience. Many of life’s ups and downs, the activities people engage in, and the goals they set for themselves are in one way or another linked to the initiation, development and maintenance of social relationships. Understanding psychological and social processes involved in how, why and when people connect with others is the central focus our lab’s research.
How do smartphones, social media, and emerging technologies impact people and their relationships?
Our lab investigates how digital technologies are reshaping the ways people form, maintain, and experience social connection. Early work in our group advanced the idea of an evolutionary mismatch between smartphones and the social behaviors that evolved to build intimacy—such as self-disclosure and responsiveness. Although smartphones and social media allow us to stay connected across time and space, they can also fragment attention and subtly erode responsiveness during face-to-face interactions.
More recently, our research has shifted toward understanding how the structure and medium of social interaction shape what “connection” feels like. In our forthcoming paper “Is More Really Merrier?” (Leckfor et al., under review), we show that the size and medium of conversations—whether dyadic or group, in person or via video chat—fundamentally change the kinds of social experiences people have. Across three studies, we found that larger conversations reduce intimacy (by decreasing self-disclosure and responsiveness) but can increase enjoyment, particularly in person. We call these “structural intimacy thresholds”—points at which conversational complexity or digital mediation begin to disrupt the interpersonal processes that make people feel emotionally seen.
We have also examined other ways technology reshapes modern relationships. In one line of work, we find that people are more likely to ghost others when they have a stronger need for closure, highlighting how digital communication platforms can both simplify and complicate relationship endings. In another project, “Not Such Fast Friends?”, we show that people who get to know each other through text-based chats disclose less and feel less connected than those who meet in richer communication environments—suggesting that even minor design features of digital media can have powerful interpersonal consequences.
Our newest line of research turns to the next frontier of social connection: people’s relationships with artificial intelligence companions. We are beginning to explore why and how people form attachments to conversational AIs such as ChatGPT, Replika, and Character.ai. What makes these interactions feel personal, responsive, or even intimate? Can AI partners fulfill emotional needs that were once uniquely human, and what does that mean for how we understand social connection in the digital age?
Together, this body of work positions our lab at the forefront of relationship science in the digital era. By integrating classic theories of intimacy with cutting-edge research on technology and communication, we aim to understand not just how technology changes relationships—but how, increasingly, technology itself becomes part of the relationship.
Learn more:
Smartphones and Close Relationships: The Case for an Evolutionary Mismatch
Sbarra, D.A., Briskin, J.L., & Slatcher, R.B. (2019). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 596–618.
How and under what conditions do people feel close to one another?
The through line going through much of our lab’s research over the past 20 years is a focus on the psychological conditions that foster feelings of closeness between people. Building on the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988), we examine how self-disclosure and responsiveness create and sustain connection across different types of relationships and situations.
Early work from our lab showed that when partners express their deeper thoughts and feelings—such as through guided writing exercises—they become more open and emotionally expressive in daily life, strengthening their relationships. We also found that intimacy extends beyond the couple itself: partners who develop friendships with other couples report greater satisfaction, passion, and connection with each other.
More recent projects explore how both interaction structure and context shape intimacy. We have found, for example, that the size and format of conversations—whether dyadic or group, in person or mediated—strongly influence the kind of connection people experience. Larger or more digitally mediated interactions tend to limit self-disclosure and responsiveness, reducing intimacy even when they increase enjoyment. In related work, we recently examined whether the physical setting of an interaction influences the experience of connection. Surprisingly, people formed just as much closeness and romantic interest in unromantic settings as they did in aesthetically appealing ones. These findings suggest that environmental cues matter far less than the interpersonal process itself—people can feel close almost anywhere when the exchange feels genuine and responsive.
We’ve also begun expanding intimacy research beyond close relationships to everyday interactions. A recent theoretical review led by Christina Leckfor synthesizes decades of work on why people do or do not engage with strangers, integrating insights from motivation, social cognition, and relationship science. This framework highlights how small psychological factors—like comfort, curiosity, or perceived social safety—shape the earliest moments of connection. Complementing this work, a recent paper led by Daisi Brand found that actively participating in live events, such as concerts or fitness classes, increases feelings of connection, especially when those experiences are in person, shared with others, and recurring over time.
Finally, in collaboration with Harry Reis, Justin Lavner, and Noel Card, Daisi Brand and I are conducting a comprehensive meta-analysis synthesizing decades of research on perceived partner responsiveness. This project aims to clarify how consistently responsiveness predicts both relational and personal well-being.
Taken together, these projects show that closeness depends less on setting or circumstance and more on how people engage with one another—the willingness to be open, responsive, and present, whether with a partner, a friend, or a stranger at a concert.
Learn more:
“Is It (Un)romantic in Here or Is It Just Me?”: Examining the Effects of Physical Settings on Relationship Initiation Processes
Brand, D. R., Leckfor, C. M., & Slatcher, R. B. (2025). Collabra: Psychology, 11(1), 140690.
Effects of Self-Disclosure and Responsiveness Between Couples on Passionate Love Within Couples (PDF)
Welker, K.M., Baker, L., Padilla, A., Holmes, H., Aron, A., & Slatcher, R.B. (2014). Personal Relationships, 21, 692-708.
See all related publications →
How do intimate relationships “get under the skin” to impact health and well-being?
Roughly 40 years ago, James House and his colleagues at the University of Michigan demonstrated that stronger social ties are associated with lower levels of mortality (House, Landis, & Umberson, Science, 1988). Since then, there has been a groundswell of research on the links between social relationships and health. Yet a critical question remains: How do social relationships “get under the skin” to impact health, both from a psychological perspective and a biological one? Much of the research in our lab—which is grounded in basic social psychology—has sought to answer this question.
The most important social bond that most humans form in adulthood is marriage. A meta-analysis of the links between marital quality and health that my colleagues and I conducted showed links between how satisfied people are in their marriage and how physically healthy they are over time. However, that meta-analysis also revealed how little is known about the specific aspects of marriage that matter most for physical health—positive aspects (e.g., warmth, understanding), negative aspects (e.g., conflict, hostility), or both. Our “Strength and Strain” model emerged out of this need to define and clarify the social psychological processes through which close relationships can impact health.
Learn more:
A Social Psychological Perspective on the Links Between Close Relationships and Health (PDF)
Slatcher, R.B., & Selcuk, E. (2017). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 16-21.
See all related publications →
How does culture shape our relationships?
Clearly there are a number of evolved and universal behaviors that guide people’s thoughts and behaviors in their relationships. But that is only part of the story. What role does culture play in shaping our relationships? Take, for example, partner responsiveness. Although the evidence is clear that perceived partner responsiveness is a central relationship process that predicts health and well-being in Western contexts, little is known about whether this association generalizes to other cultures. We recently showed that the predictive role of perceived partner responsiveness in well-being differs across the United States and Japan—two contexts with contrasting views on how the self is conceptualized in relation to the social group. Partner responsiveness positively predicted hedonic well-being (the kind of well-being associated with feeling good and happy) and eudaimonic well-being (the kind of well-being that is driven by finding meaning and purpose in life) both in the U.S. and in Japan. However, partner responsiveness more strongly predicted both types of well-being in the United States compared with Japan. By showing that the role of partner responsiveness in well-being may be influenced by cultural context, our findings contribute to achieving a more nuanced picture of the role of relationships in personal well-being.
Learn more:
Patterns of Perceived Partner Responsiveness and Well-Being in Japan and the United States (PDF)
Tasfiliz, D., Selcuk, E., Gunaydin, G., Slatcher, R.B., Corriero, E., & Ong, A.D. (2018). Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 355–365.