Can a Guy Actually Change His Behavior if He Truly Loves You, or Should You Walk Away?

Evidence Note: This article integrates peer reviewed findings from developmental neuroscience, neuroendocrinology, reproductive immunology, virology, stress physiology, and public health. Every claim is tied to a cited primary source, and every source is listed in full with its digital object identifier at the end of the article. The Bio-Relational Science framework presented here is an original educational synthesis that translates this body of research into language the general reader can act on.

Abstract

Questions about whether a partner can change if he truly loves you reflect a real tension between hope, behavior, and relational safety. This article examines the question through a bio-relational lens integrating attachment theory, stress physiology, pair-bonding research, and the empirical literature on behavior change itself. The answer the evidence supports is precise rather than hopeful. People do change, but change follows identifiable inputs, and love is not one of them. Hudson and Fraley (2015) found that wanting to change did not produce change, while formulating and executing specific behavioral plans did. Roberts et al. (2017) found in a systematic review of 207 studies that personality trait change through intervention was possible, but required sustained structured intervention over a period of weeks rather than insight or intention. Overall et al. (2013) found that avoidant partners did soften their defenses during conflict, but only when the other partner used specific low-blame influence tactics, meaning change was conditional on inputs rather than on feeling. Arriaga et al. (2018) modeled how working models are revised across time and found that security-enhancing situations must be sustained and can backfire when a partner pushes too hard. Meanwhile the cost of waiting is measurable. Attachment insecurity is associated with distinct cortisol reactivity and recovery patterns during relationship conflict (Powers et al., 2006; Pietromonaco et al., 2013; Pietromonaco & Powers, 2015). Demand and withdraw interaction is robustly associated with lower relational satisfaction across studies (Schrodt et al., 2014). Trust is built through observed behavior in situations of conflicting interest rather than through stated intention (Simpson, 2007), and partner regulation attempts frequently fail while lowering relationship quality when they do (Overall et al., 2006). Oxytocin supports bonding and its disruption carries real cost, which is why bonding depth is a reason for caution rather than a reason to stay (Schneiderman et al., 2012; Bosch & Young, 2018; Carter, 2017). Using And That’s Why Men Like Virgins (Turner, 2026), the article proposes a prevention-oriented framework for reading pattern over promise, holding boundaries during evaluation, and recognizing that leaving a destabilizing relationship is self-protection rather than a failure of love.

Keywords: attachment, hot and cold behavior, behavior change, emotional safety, oxytocin, cortisol, demand withdraw, trust, boundaries, women’s wellness

Introduction

“Can a guy actually change his behavior if he truly loves you, or should I walk away?”

The question is emotionally important because it sits at the intersection of hope and evidence. Many women want to believe that love should motivate consistency, protection, and accountability. In healthy relationships that expectation is reasonable. But when a partner repeatedly goes hot and cold, disappears, or creates confusion, the issue is not whether he has the potential to change. The issue is whether the relationship currently demonstrates the conditions necessary for trust.

Here is where the research is unusually clear, and unusually useful. Behavior change has been studied directly, and the studies agree on what produces it. Hudson and Fraley (2015) tracked people who explicitly wanted to change specific traits and found that desire alone produced nothing. Change appeared only in people who formulated and carried out concrete behavioral plans. Roberts et al. (2017) reviewed 207 intervention studies and found that trait change was achievable, but through sustained structured intervention over weeks.

Neither study found that being in love produced change. That absence is the answer to the question.

A bio-relational perspective adds that behavior is not separate from attachment. People do not merely decide to be consistent. They are organized by the quality of their bond, their stress response, and their capacity to tolerate closeness. Some people change with insight, support, and accountability. Others remain inconsistent because the relationship does not activate secure attachment or because their own relational history makes stability difficult.

This article argues that the most reliable guide is not what a partner says he feels, but what his repeated behavior reveals. Love may accompany change. It does not cause it. Genuine change is judged by pattern, not by promise (Turner, 2026).

Conceptual Framework

Four constructs organize the analysis.

Behavioral consistency is the observable regularity of a partner’s conduct across time and across stress. It is treated here as primary evidence rather than as one signal among many, because trust is built by observing behavior in situations where interests conflict (Simpson, 2007).

Conditional change is the finding that behavior change requires specific inputs. Hudson and Fraley (2015) identified concrete plans as the active ingredient, Roberts et al. (2017) identified sustained structured intervention, and Overall et al. (2013) identified particular partner influence tactics. In none of these is affection the mechanism.

Attachment under strain is the physiological signature of insecurity during relationship conflict. Powers et al. (2006) found distinct cortisol reactivity and recovery patterns by attachment style, and Pietromonaco et al. (2013) framed the broader finding that attachment gets under the skin.

Bonding cost is the recognition that oxytocin-supported attachment deepens investment and makes exit harder, and that bond disruption carries neurobiological consequence (Schneiderman et al., 2012; Bosch & Young, 2018).

The argument is that these constructs jointly explain why hope so reliably outlasts evidence, and why reading pattern is protective rather than pessimistic.

Discussion

Behavior is the evidence

A man can change his behavior, but change must be demonstrated, not declared. If he is truly invested, his actions should gradually become more stable, more responsive, and more aligned with the needs of the relationship. Repeated hot-and-cold behavior suggests that either the bond is weak, the relationship is not a priority, or the person is unable to maintain consistent attachment under stress.

Simpson (2007) explains why behavior carries this weight. Trust develops through strain tests, situations in which partners’ immediate interests conflict, because those situations reveal whether a partner will act on the relationship’s behalf when doing so costs him something. Declarations made in easy moments carry almost no diagnostic information. Conduct in hard moments carries nearly all of it.

This is especially relevant when a man disappears for days at a time. Absence, withdrawal, and inconsistency are not minor issues if they are repeated patterns. They are behavioral data. A woman does not need to guess whether a relationship is healthy when the evidence repeatedly shows instability.

It is tempting to explain inconsistency as stress, fear, immaturity, or temporary confusion. Sometimes those explanations are true. But even when they are true, they do not erase the practical effect of the behavior. A relationship that repeatedly destabilizes a woman’s nervous system is not functioning as a secure bond, and the destabilization shows up physiologically whether or not the explanation is sympathetic (Powers et al., 2006).

What the change research actually shows

This is the section that settles the question, and it comes from studies designed to test change directly rather than from opinion about human nature.

Hudson and Fraley (2015) recruited people who wanted to change specific personality traits and followed them across sixteen weeks. Desire to change predicted almost nothing on its own. What predicted actual change was whether participants generated and completed concrete, situation-specific behavioral plans. Those who wanted to become more conscientious and specified what they would do changed. Those who simply wanted it did not.

Roberts et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 207 studies examining whether clinical intervention produces personality trait change. Change was achievable, with meaningful effects emerging within about four to eight weeks and persisting afterward. But every route to it ran through sustained structured intervention. Trait change was an outcome of repeated effortful practice, not of motivation.

Note what is absent from both findings. Neither identifies love, remorse, fear of loss, or an intense conversation as a mechanism. The mechanism is repeated deliberate behavior over a sustained period, usually with external structure.

So the honest answer to “can he change” is yes, under conditions that are specific and observable. And that reframes the woman’s task entirely. She does not have to assess his feelings, which are unknowable. She has to assess whether the conditions for change are present, which is visible.

Change requires a mechanism, not a motive

Overall et al. (2013) provide the most relevant experimental demonstration, and it does support the possibility of change while narrowing it considerably.

They studied couples discussing conflicts and focused on avoidantly attached partners, the ones most prone to withdrawal. Avoidant partners did soften their emotional and behavioral defenses during these discussions, becoming less withdrawn and more engaged. But this occurred only when the other partner used low-blame, low-pressure influence tactics that reduced the perceived threat of the conversation. When the influence attempt carried blame or pressure, avoidant defenses hardened.

Read carefully, this is both encouraging and sobering. Change was real and measurable. It was also entirely contingent on a specific input, and it was situational rather than dispositional. Nothing in the study suggests that the avoidant partner became consistently different afterward.

Overall et al. (2006) tested the broader question of whether partners can regulate each other into change. Across their studies, regulation attempts were common, frequently unsuccessful, and associated with lower relationship quality when they failed. Trying harder to change a partner tended to cost the relationship rather than improve it.

This is the empirical version of a point in her original article. A woman should not try to out-negotiate a pattern. The research adds that the attempt itself has a price.

Love and change are not the same thing

A person may feel love and still lack the skills to express it well. That is possible. However, love that remains unaccompanied by reliability can be emotionally costly to the partner on the receiving end. The question is not whether he has feelings in abstract terms. The question is whether the relationship is producing safety, clarity, and consistency.

Attachment research shows that insecure orientations are linked to distinct physiological responses to relationship stress. Powers et al. (2006) measured cortisol in dating couples before, during, and after a conflict discussion and found that attachment style predicted both reactivity and the speed of recovery. Pietromonaco et al. (2013) summarized the pattern as attachment getting under the skin, and Pietromonaco and Powers (2015) extended it to health-related physiological stress processes.

This means some people experience real emotional activation and still withdraw when intimacy becomes demanding. Mikulincer and Shaver (2019) describe avoidant orientation as deactivating the attachment system under threat, which produces distance at exactly the moment closeness is most needed. Simpson and Rholes (2017) reach compatible conclusions about attachment and stress in romantic relationships.

So the feeling can be genuine and the behavior can still be unlivable. The partner may confuse avoidance with complexity and hope with progress. But repeated withdrawal is not a stable form of love, and treating it as one requires ignoring what the body already knows.

Withdrawal is not complexity, it is a documented pattern

Disappearing is often treated as idiosyncratic, something particular to this man that requires interpretation. It is one of the most studied interaction patterns in relationship science.

Schrodt et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analytic review of the demand and withdraw pattern across 74 studies. The pattern was consistently and negatively associated with relational satisfaction and positively associated with distress, and the association held across the direction of the pattern and across relationship types. Withdrawal is not neutral. It is a reliable marker of relational deterioration.

Gottman and Levenson (2000) followed couples across fourteen years and identified two distinct routes to dissolution, one driven by negative affect during conflict and a later one driven by the absence of positive affect. Both were predictable from observed behavior years in advance. Karney and Bradbury (1995) reviewed the longitudinal literature and concluded that enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events, and adaptive processes jointly determine trajectories, which are detectable early.

Knobloch and Solomon (1999) named the specific injury of hot-and-cold contact. Relational uncertainty, meaning doubt about one’s own involvement, the partner’s involvement, and the relationship’s future, is a distinct and measurable construct with its own consequences. It is not a sensitivity on the woman’s part. It is a property of the relationship.

And Freedman et al. (2018) found that beliefs about disappearing track people’s implicit theories of relationships. Those who held destiny beliefs, viewing relationships as either meant to be or not, were more accepting of ghosting as a way to end things. Disappearing is often not confusion. It is a strategy, and it has a worldview behind it.

Attachment gets under the skin

Her framework claims that an unstable relationship registers in the body. The physiology supports this specifically.

Powers et al. (2006) found attachment-linked differences in cortisol reactivity and recovery following conflict. Ditzen et al. (2008) found that adult attachment and social support interacted to shape psychological stress responses. Robles et al. (2014) established in a meta-analytic review of marital quality and health that relationship quality is associated with physical health outcomes across a wide range of measures.

The positive side of this is equally documented and equally relevant to the decision. Coan et al. (2006) found that holding a partner’s hand under threat attenuated neural threat response, with the effect strongest in higher-quality relationships. Ditzen et al. (2009) found that intranasal oxytocin increased positive communication and reduced cortisol during couple conflict. A reliable partner lowers physiological load. An unreliable one raises it.

So the question of whether to stay is not only emotional. Staying in a chronically destabilizing relationship is a sustained physiological exposure, and the exposure accumulates. That is a legitimate input to the decision, and women are rarely told they are permitted to count it.

Women must read behavior, not potential

Women are often encouraged to focus on a partner’s potential. While hope is understandable, potential can become a trap if it replaces evidence. The fact that a man could theoretically become more consistent does not mean that he will. And if his current behavior is marked by disappearing, hot-and-cold contact, or emotional unpredictability, the relationship may already be telling the truth.

Lavner et al. (2016) found something that reframes the usual advice. Following newlywed couples and testing both causal directions, marital satisfaction predicted later communication behavior more consistently than communication predicted later satisfaction. Communication quality is substantially an output of relationship health, not a lever that produces it. Teaching a struggling relationship to communicate better addresses a symptom.

Joel et al. (2020) analyzed 43 longitudinal couples studies using machine learning and found that relationship-specific variables, including a partner’s perceived responsiveness and satisfaction, predicted relationship quality far better than individual traits did. What the relationship is actually doing outperforms what either person is like.

One of the most important lessons in relational education is that a woman should not try to out-negotiate a pattern. If the behavior is consistently destabilizing, no amount of patience will make it safe. A woman may be able to tolerate the pattern longer, but tolerance is not the same as healing. Overall et al. (2006) confirm the cost of the attempt.

Why hope outlasts evidence

If behavior is this readable, the question becomes why the information gets refused. Two findings explain most of it.

Spielmann et al. (2013) ran six studies on fear of being single and found that people higher in it showed greater willingness to settle, expressing romantic interest in less responsive partners, staying in less satisfying relationships, and remaining dependent on poor matches. The effects appeared in experimental manipulations and in longitudinal data. Fear of being single does not merely lower standards at the outset. It reinterprets evidence already in hand.

Le and Agnew (2003) confirmed meta-analytically that commitment is determined by satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives. Two of those three can hold commitment firmly in place while satisfaction collapses. Rusbult and Martz (1995) demonstrated exactly this in a study of women in abusive relationships, where staying was predicted by investment and constrained alternatives rather than by satisfaction.

Neither finding indicts the woman. Both describe forces operating on anyone in that position. But naming them is protective, because a woman who recognizes that she is reinterpreting rather than observing can return to the observation.

The role of boundaries

Boundaries matter because they protect clarity while a relationship is still under evaluation. Young women in particular may become deeply attached before they have enough information to judge a partner’s character. Boundaries create the time and space needed to evaluate behavior honestly.

In the context of physical intimacy, boundaries are even more important, and the bonding research is the reason. Schneiderman et al. (2012) measured oxytocin in new couples and found that levels during the initial stages of romantic attachment were associated with interactive reciprocity and predicted relationship persistence months later. Carter (2017) reviews how the oxytocin and vasopressin pathway supports attachment while also being implicated in fear and defensive responses, meaning the same system that bonds also raises the stakes of that bond.

Bosch and Young (2018) address the other half directly, reviewing oxytocin and social relationships from attachment through bond disruption. The neurobiology that builds a bond is the neurobiology that makes its loss costly. Depth of bonding is therefore a reason for caution during evaluation, not a reason to hurry.

Sexual closeness can intensify attachment and increase emotional vulnerability, especially for women whose bonding systems may be more responsive to intimacy and consistency (Schneiderman et al., 2012). One-sided or unstable relationships become harder to leave once physical intimacy has deepened the bond.

The safest approach is to require consistency before giving increasingly intimate access. A partner who is serious will not be threatened by reasonable boundaries. A partner who is only comfortable benefiting from access may resist them, and that resistance is itself a strain test in Simpson’s (2007) sense.

What genuine change looks like when it happens

Because the framework says change is possible, it should say what it looks like. The research allows real specificity.

Arriaga et al. (2018) developed a model of how attachment working models are revised across time and identified the situations that enhance security. Change occurs when a partner’s behavior repeatedly disconfirms the insecure expectation, in situations that matter, over a sustained period. Arriaga and Kumashiro (2019) add an important caution, describing security enhancement as walking a tightrope, because efforts that push too hard or too fast can activate the very defenses they aim to reduce.

Fraley and Roisman (2019) summarize four lessons on the development of adult attachment styles, including that styles show meaningful stability while remaining open to revision. Overall and Simpson (2015) describe the dyadic regulation processes through which partners either buffer or amplify each other’s insecurity.

Taken together, genuine change has recognizable features. It is gradual and continuous rather than dramatic and episodic. It shows up in the specific behaviors that were the problem, not in general warmth elsewhere. It holds under stress rather than only in calm periods. It does not require her to manage it. And it is usually accompanied by external structure such as therapy, because that is what the intervention literature says produces trait-level change (Roberts et al., 2017).

Change that appears only after she threatens to leave, and recedes once she stays, matches none of these features. That is not change. That is the pattern.

When to walk away

Walking away is not an overreaction when the pattern is repeated inconsistency. It is often the healthiest response to a relationship that does not provide emotional security. If a man truly loves a woman and is capable of change, that change should become visible through behavior over time. If it does not, the woman is not obligated to wait indefinitely.

The intervention literature supplies a sobering benchmark for the most serious cases. Babcock et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment programs and found that the effect of intervention on recidivism was small. When behavior is harmful and the intervention designed specifically to change it produces modest results, a woman’s decision to remove herself is not impatience. It is an accurate reading of the odds.

A relationship should not require constant reinterpretation to feel safe. If a woman must continually explain away disappearances, hot-and-cold communication, or a lack of follow-through, the relationship is already doing damage, and the damage is physiological as well as emotional (Powers et al., 2006; Robles et al., 2014). In that case, leaving is not a failure of love. It is an act of self-protection.

One practical standard follows from everything above. Set a period of time, decide in advance what specific behavioral change would count, and then observe without negotiating. Change that is real will be visible inside a defined window, because that is how change behaves (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Roberts et al., 2017). Change that requires indefinite waiting is not change.

Relation to Bio-Relational Science

Bio-Relational Science holds that relational outcomes are produced by biology, attachment, and repeated behavior together. This question shows why all three layers are necessary, because each one alone produces the wrong advice.

Biology alone says the bond is real and the chemistry is powerful, which is used to justify staying. Attachment alone says he has an avoidant orientation, which is used to excuse the behavior. Behavior alone says he is inconsistent, which is true but gives no explanation of why or whether it will shift. The framework’s contribution is that it holds the three together and produces a testable standard rather than a verdict on his character.

That standard is what the framework actually delivers here. Change is possible, and it has known requirements: concrete plans, sustained practice, usually external structure, and behavior that holds under stress (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Roberts et al., 2017; Overall et al., 2013; Arriaga et al., 2018). Those requirements are observable from outside. A woman does not have to read his heart. She has to read whether the requirements are present.

The framework also insists on counting the cost of the evaluation period honestly. Bonding deepens investment and makes exit harder, and bond disruption carries real cost (Schneiderman et al., 2012; Bosch & Young, 2018). Physiological load accumulates during instability (Powers et al., 2006; Robles et al., 2014). This is the basis for the framework’s position on boundaries, which is not moralism but sequencing. Information should arrive before the bond deepens, because that is the only order in which the information is usable.

Turner (2026) develops this argument in And That’s Why Men Like Virgins, showing how silence about the biology of bonding leaves women making irreversible attachment decisions with incomplete information, then blaming themselves for the outcome. The present analysis extends that argument with the behavior change, trust, demand and withdraw, and attachment physiology literatures.

Implications for Women’s Wellness and Bio-Relational Education

Women’s wellness education should emphasize that love and consistency are not identical. A man may say he cares, but care that does not translate into stable behavior is not enough to support a healthy bond. Women deserve guidance that helps them evaluate patterns rather than promises.

Six teaching priorities follow.

Teach the actual requirements for change. Desire does not produce change, plans and sustained practice do, usually with external structure (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Roberts et al., 2017). This converts an unanswerable question about his feelings into an answerable question about observable conditions.

Teach the strain test. Trust is built by watching a partner act in situations where his interests and hers conflict, not by listening to him in easy moments (Simpson, 2007). Women should be taught to weight those moments heavily and discount the rest.

Teach that withdrawal is a documented pattern rather than a mystery. Demand and withdraw is robustly associated with distress and dissatisfaction across the literature, and dissolution trajectories are visible years in advance (Schrodt et al., 2014; Gottman & Levenson, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

Teach the physiology of instability. Attachment-related stress shows up in cortisol reactivity and recovery, and relationship quality tracks physical health outcomes (Powers et al., 2006; Pietromonaco et al., 2013; Robles et al., 2014). A woman is allowed to count her own body as evidence.

Teach boundaries as sequencing rather than as virtue. Because bonding deepens investment and raises the cost of exit, information should be gathered before intimacy accelerates attachment (Schneiderman et al., 2012; Bosch & Young, 2018).

Teach the forces that push against clear reading. Fear of being single reinterprets evidence, and investment and constrained alternatives hold commitment in place while satisfaction falls (Spielmann et al., 2013; Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Naming these in advance makes them recognizable in the moment.

For educators and clinicians, the implication is that the useful question is not “does he love you?” It is “what has he done, repeatedly, under stress, without being asked?” That question has an answer, and the answer is available before the cost of leaving becomes prohibitive.

Conclusion

Can a guy change his behavior if he truly loves you? Sometimes yes. But love is not proven by words, and change is not proven by potential. It is proven by consistency, accountability, and sustained relational safety.

The research narrows the question usefully. Change requires concrete plans rather than desire, sustained practice rather than insight, and usually external structure rather than good intentions (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Roberts et al., 2017). It is conditional on specific inputs even in the studies that demonstrate it (Overall et al., 2013; Arriaga et al., 2018). Trust is earned through behavior in moments of conflicting interest (Simpson, 2007). Withdrawal is not idiosyncratic but a measurable marker of deterioration (Schrodt et al., 2014). And the waiting is not free, because instability registers physiologically and accumulates (Powers et al., 2006; Robles et al., 2014).

Hot-and-cold behavior, disappearance, and instability are not signs to ignore. They are signs to evaluate, inside a defined window, against specific behavioral standards, without negotiating on his behalf. If the pattern does not improve in real time, the healthiest response may be to walk away while clarity remains intact.

A bio-relational framework makes this plain. Relationships should be judged by the security they create, not by the hope they inspire. When a bond is real, it becomes visible in behavior. When it is not, no amount of wishing will make it stable.

References

Arriaga, X. B., & Kumashiro, M. (2019). Walking a security tightrope: Relationship-induced changes in attachment security. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.016

Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317705257

Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001

Bosch, O. J., & Young, L. J. (2018). Oxytocin and social relationships: From attachment to bond disruption. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 35, 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2017_10

Carter, C. S. (2017). The oxytocin-vasopressin pathway in the context of love and fear. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 8, 356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2017.00356

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x

Ditzen, B., Schaer, M., Gabriel, B., Bodenmann, G., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2009). Intranasal oxytocin increases positive communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biological Psychiatry, 65(9), 728-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.10.011

Ditzen, B., Schmidt, S., Strauss, B., Nater, U. M., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2008). Adult attachment and social support interact to reduce psychological but not cortisol responses to stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(5), 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.11.011

Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008

Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2018). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905-924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517748791

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021

Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., Arriaga, X. B., Baker, Z. G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Bergeron, S., Birnbaum, G. E., Brock, R. L., Brumbaugh, C. C., Carmichael, C. L., Chen, S., Clarke, J., Cobb, R. J., Coolsen, M. K., Davis, J., de Jong, D. C., Debrot, A., DeHaas, E. C., … Wolf, S. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061-19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499

Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples’ communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2019). Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006

Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 662-685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662

Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854-871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031798

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Powers, S. I. (2015). Attachment and health-related physiological stress processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.001

Pietromonaco, P. R., DeBuse, C. J., & Powers, S. I. (2013). Does attachment get under the skin? Adult romantic attachment and cortisol responses to stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412463229

Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M., & Sayer, A. (2006). Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.613

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216002

Schneiderman, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic attachment: Relations to couples’ interactive reciprocity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(8), 1277-1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.12.021

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand and withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632

Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 264-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006

Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1049-1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034628

Turner, D. R. (2026). And that’s why men like virgins: How biology and silence keep good girls in the dark. VirtualVillageMom Publishing.

About the Author

Donna R. Turner, Ed.S., MPH, CHES, HSMI, CDVA is the founder of the Center for Bio-Relational Health (CBRH) and the developer of the Bio-Relational Science educational framework. Her work integrates educational psychology, public health, neuroscience, reproductive biology, and relationship science to improve health literacy and relationship decision-making.

A Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES), Turner has spent more than two decades developing educational programs that translate complex scientific research into practical knowledge for the public. Her research interests include pair bonding, neuroendocrinology, reproductive health, human papillomavirus (HPV), stress physiology, and evidence-based relationship education.

She is the author of And That’s Why Men Like Virgins: How Biology & Silence Keep Good Girls in the Dark, the inventor of a patent-pending over-the-counter HPV sperm testing technology, and the creator of the Truth Talk relationship education series.

Learn more about the Center for Bio-Relational Health, explore additional Featured Articles, browse the Relationship Question Library for practical, evidence-informed answers grounded in Bio-Relational Science, or explore the app for free relationship lessons and unlock Ask Donna René for personalize guidance to your relationship questions.

And That's Why Men Like Virgins by Donna R. Turner

Continue Exploring Bio-Relational Science

Want the broader relationship framework?

And That’s Why Men Like Virgins

Explore attraction, attachment, intimacy, heartbreak, male romantic behavior, stress, trauma, and relationship decision-making in one practical book written for adult women.

Explore the Book