As people come together in romantic relationships, they tend to merge—to integrate aspects of each other and even create a new unit or entity. This phenomenon has inspired several robust literatures within the field of relationship science, but they have developed within relative isolation of one another. In this article, we put four of those literatures into conversation: merging in the context of selves, goals, processing, and reality. We review each of these topics in turn before discussing the commonalities and differences between them, including shared antecedents and consequences of merging. Merging, we conclude, is typically associated with better relationship functioning, with a few noted exceptions (e.g., too much closeness can dampen desire). We then propose an agenda for the future of research on the theme of merging in close relationships.
AgnewC. R.Van LangeP. A.RusbultC. E.LangstonC. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954.
2.
AronA.AronE. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.
3.
AronA.AronE. N.TudorM.NelsonG. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.
4.
BeckesL.SbarraD. A. (2022). Social baseline theory: State of the science and new directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 36–41.
5.
BoothbyE. J.SmithL. K.ClarkM. S.BarghJ. A. (2017). The world looks better together: How close others enhance our visual experiences. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 694–714.
6.
ChandlerK. R.KruegerK. L.ForestA. L.OrehekE. (2023). Interested and instrumental: An examination of instrumentality regulation with potential romantic partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(2), 197–214.
7.
ElnakouriA.Rossignac-MilonM.KruegerK. L.ForestA. L.HigginsE. T.ScholerA. A. (2023). In it together: Shared reality with instrumental others is linked to goal success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1072–1095.
8.
EmeryL. F.GardnerW. L.CarswellK. L.FinkelE. J. (2021). Who are “we”? Couple identity clarity and romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 146–160.
9.
EnestromM. C.LydonJ. E. (2021). Relationship satisfaction in the time of COVID-19: The role of shared reality in perceiving partner support for frontline health-care workers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(8), 2330–2349.
10.
EnestromM. C.Rossignac-MilonM.ForestA. L.LydonJ. E. (2024). Meaning-making with romantic partners: Shared reality promotes meaning in life by reducing uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000472
GomillionS.MurrayS. L.LamarcheV. M. (2015). Losing the wind beneath your wings: The prospective influence of romantic breakup on goal progress. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 513–520.
13.
HarrisS. A.BarnierA. J.HarrisC. B. (2023). ‘I remember where the galaxies are and you remember where the stocks are’: Older couples’ descriptions of transactive memory systems in everyday life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(7), 2323–2348.
14.
HigginsE. T.Rossignac-MilonM.EchterhoffG. (2021). Shared reality: From sharing-is-believing to merging minds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(2), 103–110.
15.
HughesE. K.EmeryL. F.McGorrayE. L.GardnerW. L.FinkelE. J. (2025). The delusion of the disappearing self? Attachment avoidance and the experience of externally invisible self-loss in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000468
16.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. C. (2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 111(3), 317–340.
17.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press.
18.
LaunayJ.DunbarR. I. (2015). Playing with strangers: which shared traits attract us most to new people?PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0129688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129688
19.
LaurinK.FitzsimonsG. M.FinkelE. J.CarswellK. L.vanDellenM. R.HofmannW.LambertN. M.EastwickP. W.FinchamF. D.BrownP. C. (2016). Power and the pursuit of a partner’s goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 840–868.
20.
MuiseA.GossS. (2024). Does too much closeness dampen desire? On the balance of closeness and otherness for the maintenance of sexual desire in romantic relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231211542
21.
MuiseA.HarasymchukC.DayL. C.Bacev-GilesC.GereJ.ImpettE. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237–258.
22.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116(4), 908–928.
23.
OlsonJ. G.RickS. I.SmallD. A.FinkelE. J. (2023). Common cents: Bank account structure and couples’ relationship dynamics. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(4), 704–721.
24.
OrehekE.ForestA. L.BarbaroN. (2018). A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 373–389.
25.
PaulyT.LuescherJ.BerliC.HoppmannC. A.MurphyR. A.AsheM. C.LindenW.MaddenK. M.GerstorfD.ScholzU. (2024). Let’s enjoy an evening on the couch? A daily life investigation of shared problematic behaviors in three couple studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(5), 733–749.
26.
Rossignac-MilonM.BolgerN.ZeeK. S.BoothbyE. J.HigginsE. T. (2021). Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 882–911.
27.
Rossignac-MilonM.PillemerJ.BaileyE. R.HortonC. B.Jr.IyengarS. S. (2024). Just be real with me: Perceived partner authenticity promotes relationship initiation via shared reality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 180, Article 104306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104306
28.
SakalukJ. K.BiernatM.LeB. M.LundyS.ImpettE. A. (2020). On the strength of ties that bind: Measuring the strength of norms in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 906–931.
29.
ShteynbergG. (2018). A collective perspective: Shared attention and the mind. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 93–97.
30.
SlotterE. B.DuffyC. W.GardnerW. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me” with the need to be “we”: Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the understanding of multiple motives within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71–81.
31.
SlotterE. B.GardnerW. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self–other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1137–1151.
32.
TsangS.WoodA. (2024). How emotion contagion changes as strangers become acquainted: A longitudinal conversation study. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fye75
33.
WangA. M.ChenS.AronA. (2023). Perceiving couples as discrete units: The existence of couple-level identities. Personal Relationships, 30(3), 868–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12359
34.
WegnerD. M.ErberR.RaymondP. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.
35.
WegnerD. M.GiulianoT.HertelP. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.) Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). Springer.
