Memory

ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20

Commitment in romantic relationships as afunction of partners’ encoding of important
couple-related memories
Valerie Guilbault & Frederick L. Philippe
To cite this article: Valerie Guilbault & Frederick L. Philippe (2017) Commitment in romantic
relationships as a function of partners’ encoding of important couple-related memories, Memory,
25:5, 595-606, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1197943
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1197943

Published online: 16 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 166

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20

MEMORY, 2017VOL. 25, NO. 5, 595–606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1197943

Commitment in romantic relationships as a function of partners’ encoding ofimportant couple-related memories
Valerie Guilbault and Frederick L. Philippe
Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
ABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how signiﬁcant couple-related events are
encoded in the episodic memory of each partner of a romantic relationship and how they
relate to each of these partners’ level of commitment in an independent and additive fashion.
Each partner of a couple reported a signiﬁcant couple-related memory and rated their level ofneed satisfaction experienced during the event of the memory. In addition, each partner was
shown his/her partner’s memory and also rated their own level of need satisfaction for thisevent. Results showed that partners need satisfaction ratings of their own memory positively
predicted their own commitment to the relationship directly (for women) as well as throughtheir need satisfaction generally experienced in the relationship (for men). In addition, men’sneed satisfaction ratings of their own memory were associated with women’s commitment
while controlling for women’s need satisfaction ratings of men’s memory, but no such crosspartner effects were found for women. Overall, the ﬁndings shed light on an initial
understanding of how a person’s own memory of an event can impact another person’s
attitudes even when taking into account this other person’s memory encoding of that same event.

Received 21 October 2015
Accepted 1 June 2016

Memories are an important part of people’s self andserve as its knowledge database (Conway & PleydellPearce, 2000; Conway, Singer, & Tagini, 2004). While
research has typically investigated how a person’s
memory can impact personal outcomes (such as his/
her identity or well-being), little is known about how aperson’s memory can relate to another person’s perceptions. When involved in a romantic relationship, partners
experience important events together and encode themin their own way, thus creating two unique memories fora same event. In the present study, we sought toexamine the interactive effects that couple-related
memories may have on partners involved in a romantic
relationship. Speciﬁcally, we sought to clarify how acouple-related memory that is represented in both partners’ memory system can be differentially linked to eachpartner’s perceptions about the relationship.

Episodic memories
Episodic memories of personally signiﬁcant events canhave an inﬂuence on people’s perceptions of themselves and of others. Some memories appear to be
more chronically accessible than others (i.e., theirpotential for activation is higher when processing new
information), which makes them more likely to be triggered by contextual cues or thought-about (Conway &Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2009),
CONTACT Valerie Guilbault
guilbault.valerie@courrier.uqam.ca
Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8, Canada© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupKEYWORDS

Episodic memories; needsatisfaction; couple
relationship; relationshipcommitment

and are therefore more likely to be shared (Alea &Bluck, 2003) or used in novel situations to appraise or
evaluate the current context (Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, Lecours, & Lekes, 2012; Singer & Salovey,1993). Activated memories have been found to affectwell-being, intentions, and behaviours even without
people’s awareness of the inﬂuence of their memories(Biondolillo & Pillemer, 2015; Kuwabara & Pillemer,
2010; Philippe et al., 2012; Pillemer, 2003). Supporting
this impact of memories in the relationship domain,
Alea and Bluck (2007) showed that having people
remember positive autobiographical memories about
their current romantic relationship led to a subsequent
increase in perceived warmth towards their partner.
Similarly, Bazzini et al. (2007) showed that couples reminiscing about a past experience involving shared laughter reported subsequent increases in their relationshipsatisfaction. Other studies have also found that thevalence of a couple-related memory was related tomarital satisfaction (Alea & Vick, 2010) and that suchmemories could predict increases in relationshipquality or relationship dissolution one and a half year
later (Philippe, Koestner, & Lekes, 2013).

Need satisfaction in memories
An inﬂuential component of episodic memories is the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs (Philippe,

Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, P.O Box 8888, Station

596

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours, 2011). Self-determination theory posits that humans strive to satisfy three
innate and universal psychological needs, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Autonomy is the need to feel authentic and to feel that
actions come from oneself. Competence corresponds tothe need to feel efﬁcacious. Relatedness refers to theneed to feel connected to others – to feel loved andcared for and to love and care for others. The satisfactionof these three innate psychological needs promotes daily
as well as general well-being (Reis, Sheldon, Gable,
Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). Needsatisfaction within different close relationships has beenfound to relate to attachment security within those particular relationships (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci,
2000). The satisfaction of these basic psychological needs
has also been investigated in memories and has beenfound to be a core experiential component of memories
and one of the best predictor of well-being (Philippe, Bouizegarene, Guilbault, Rajotte, & Houle 2015; Philippe et al.,2011) and relationship quality (Philippe et al., 2013).
Episodic memories are thought to contribute to abstract
self-knowledge, such as traits, attitudes, or self-perceptions(Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000), but also to remain fairly
independent of that self-knowledge (Klein, Cosmides,
Tooby, & Chance, 2002; Philippe et al., 2011). One interesting aspect of need satisfaction is that it can be assessed as
an experiential component of a memory, while at the sametime being assessed as abstract self-knowledge within aparticular context (perceived need satisfaction in one’s
couple) or in general (perceived need satisfaction in
one’s life). In that way, it is possible to test whether needsatisfaction in particular memories only reﬂect people’s
self-knowledge of their need satisfaction in general or ina particular context, or if these memories have a speciﬁc
effect of their own on important outcomes. For instance,need satisfaction in self-deﬁning memories was found tocontribute to well-being, over and above traits andgeneral perceptions of need satisfaction (Philippe et al.,2011). Milyavskaya et al. (2013) have found that need satisfaction in memories could prospectively predict well-being
over and above need satisfaction in the domain related tothe memory (e.g., school or friends) and need satisfaction
in general. Finally, need satisfaction ratings of couplerelated memories have been found to be positively associated with perceptions of relationship quality, over andabove general perceptions of need satisfaction in therelationship, attachment, and other key relational variables(Philippe et al., 2013, Study 1).
Not only is need satisfaction in people’s couple-related
memories expected to be associated with important relational outcomes in a way that is independent from theirgeneral impression of need satisfaction in that relationship,
it is also expected to relate to their partners’ relational outcomes. For instance, one study (Philippe et al., 2013, Study3) examined the effect of a single couple-related memory
on both the participants’ own as well as their partners’

perceptions of relationship quality. Findings revealed thatparticipants’ need satisfaction ratings of a memory involving their current partner predicted the participants’ aswell as their partners’ perceptions of relationship quality,
over and above both the participants’ and partners’
general perceptions of need satisfaction in the relationship.
One remaining question, however, is how important
couple-related events represented differently in each partner’s memory system may affect each partner in two independent and additive ways that is, through the person’s
own encoding of the event and through his/her partner’s
encoding of the event. Given that memories can beshared or direct people’s feelings and behaviours, theireffects through one partner’s subjective experience,verbal expression, or behaviours are likely to be perceived
by the other partner, which is likely to also affect this otherpartner’s perceptions of the romantic relationship but in an
independent manner. As a consequence, the way a couplerelated memory is encoded in the memory system of apartner can affect his/her own relationship perceptions,but also his/her partner’s perceptions of the relationship,
independently of how this same memory is encoded in
the memory system of this other partner.

Gender differences in memories and inromantic relationships
A recent review suggests that, while gender differences inmemories are not found in all studies, there is some evidence suggesting signiﬁcant differences in the way men
and women remember life events (Grysman & Hudson,2013). Women have been found to recall more emotional
memories than men (Bloise & Johnson, 2007; Davis, 1999;
Grysman, 2014; Ross & Holmberg, 1992) and to rate theirmemories as more signiﬁcant than men (Ross & Holmberg,
1992). Women’s memories also seem to be characterisedby more speciﬁcity (Pillemer, Wink, DiDonato, & Sanborn,2003) and more vividness (Alea & Vick, 2010; Ross & Holmberg, 1992) than men’s memories. In addition, women’svivid memories generally include more interpersonal
context and are more detailed than men’s (Niedźwieńska,2003). With regard to couple-related memories, whileboth men and women show an increase in feelings ofwarmth towards their romantic partner following therecall of a personally signiﬁcant couple-related memory,
only women show an increase in feelings of closeness(Alea & Bluck, 2007). In addition, women’s (but not
men’s) self-reported intensity and rehearsal of theirrelationship-deﬁning memory has been associated with
their own marital satisfaction (Alea & Vick, 2010).
Some gender differences have also been documented
in the literature on romantic relationships suggestingthat women may be more affected by their romantic
relationship than men are. Women’s perceived unfairnessof household division was found to predict their relationship quality, but men’s perceptions did not relate to theirown relationship quality (Britt & Roy, 2014). Men’s self-MEMORY

determined motivation for sexual intercourse has beenfound to predict women’s psychological well-being andrelationship quality, but women’s self-determined motivation does not predict men’s well-being and relationshipquality (Brunell & Webster, 2013). Also, when men reporta high score of neuroticism, both they and their female
partner report lower marital satisfaction whereas
women’s report of high neuroticism is only linked to theirown marital satisfaction (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2005). In
addition, social support provided by husbands has more
impact on women’s marital satisfaction than wives’ social
support has on men’s marital satisfaction (Julien &Markman, 1991). Likewise, men’s support provision totheir female partner has been found to predict men andwomen’s marital satisfaction, but women’s support provision does not predict men’s marital satisfaction (Jensen,
Rauer, & Volling, 2013). Men’s coping in the relationshipwas found to relate to both their own and their female
partner’s marital quality whereas women’s coping is only
associated with their own marital quality (Bodenmann,
Pihet, & Kayser, 2006). Together, these studies suggestthat whenever cross-partner effects are examined withinromantic relationships, women seem to be more affectedby men’s traits, attitudes, and actions, than men areaffected by women’s traits, attitudes, and actions. Consequently, gender differences in the association between
men’s and women’s couple-related memories and theirpartners’ perceptions of the relationship can be reasonably
expected.

The present study
Although people’s couple-related memories have been
related to both their own and their partners’ relationshipquality (Philippe et al., 2013, Study 3), only the effect of
one partner’s memory on both partners’ perceptions
about their relationship was assessed. The effects of eachpartner’s couple-related memory on both partners’ perceptions have yet to be investigated. It is still unclear how
people’s couple-related memories are represented inboth their own memory system and their partners’ andhow each partner’s important couple-related memory
interacts to predict meaningful relationship outcomes forboth partners. The present study sought to examine theassociation of both partners’ signiﬁcant couple-related
memories on a key relational construct – commitment.
An important feature of romantic relationship is thecommitment of the partners to the relationship (Sternberg,1986). Commitment is characterised by a long-term orientation that involves a will to maintain the relationship evenduring hard times (Acker & Davis, 1992). Commitment ofboth partners to a romantic relationship has been associated with relationship maintenance behaviours (Ramirez,2008) such as accommodation and willingness to sacriﬁce(Etcheverry & Le, 2005) and relationship persistence overtime (Etcheverry & Le, 2005). It has also been associatedwith greater relationship satisfaction and is a consistent597

negative predictor of relationship dissolution acrossstudies (Le et al., 2010). It thus constitutes a central relational variable. Therefore, in the present study, we examined the effect of partners’ personally meaningful couplerelated memories on their commitment to the relationship.
Following past research (Philippe et al., 2013), need satisfaction in each partner’s memory was expected to be
associated with one’s own commitment ratings, as wellas with one’s partner’s commitment ratings. In addition,
given that episodic memories are expected to contributeto self-knowledge structures (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce,
2000) while still preserving an independent function(Klein & Loftus, 1993; Milyavskaya, Philippe, & Koestner,2013), these associations should be only partly mediatedby perceived need satisfaction in the couple relationship.
Given the documented gender differences in memories
and in relationships, we also explored differences
between men’s and women’s partner effects. Traits ofextraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness were also
controlled in the present study, since those traits can inﬂuence romantic outcomes (e.g., Holland & Roisman, 2008).

MethodParticipants
The sample included 138 people in couples (69 heterosexual couples) recruited through advertisements on a Canadian university campus and in a community journal. One
couple was excluded from analyses since it was found to
be a clear multivariate outlier (ﬁnal n = 68 couples). This
sample size is adequate to detect correlations of medium
effect size (based on past research, see Philippe et al.,2013) with a power of .80. The mean age was 25.45 years(SD = 7.10) for women and 28.13 years (SD = 8.87) formen. All partners had been involved in their relationshipfor at least one year at the time of the study (M = 4.46
years, SD = 2.74). Length of the relationship was not associated with any study variable (rs < |.13|, ps > .28).

Measures
General measures
Personality traits
The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow,& Swann, 2003) was used to assess extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. Participants were asked to indicate how well each pair of adjectives described them on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly disagree toStrongly agree. Extraversion and neuroticism were assessedwith two items each. Item inter-correlations were .53 formen’s extraversion, .62 for men’s neuroticism, .05 formen’s agreeableness, .70 for women’s extraversion, .27
for women’s neuroticism, and .04 for women’s
agreeableness.

598

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Need satisfaction in the relationship
The Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (LaGuardia et al., 2000) was used to assess satisfaction of
the three basic psychological needs postulated by selfdetermination theory (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) experienced within the romantic relationship. Eachneed was assessed with three items and an index ofneed satisfaction in the relationship was computed byaveraging the scores of those nine items. Participants
rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items
include “When I am with my partner, I feel free to be
who I am” (autonomy), “When I am with my partner, I
feel like a competent person” (competence), and “When I
am with my partner, I feel loved and cared about” (relatedness). Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcients were .85 for men and.87 for women in this study.

Commitment to the relationshipSix items of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, &Agnew, 1998) were used to assess commitment to thecurrent romantic relationship. Participants rated their commitment on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all toStrongly. A sample item is “I want our relationship to last fora very long time.” Alphas were .86 for men and .80 for
women.

Memory measures
Episodic couple memory
Participants and partners were asked to describe separately a signiﬁcant (important) memory about their relationship. They were instructed to recall a positive event they
had experienced within their current relationship that
often came to their mind. They were instructed not totake too much time in choosing the perfect memory, butinstead to select one that spontaneously came to mind.
Instructions also stressed that they should not be preoccupied by their partners’ opinion about their memory. They
were asked to report what happened, where it occurred,with whom, and how they and the other people present
reacted. Finally, they were instructed to provide enoughdetails so that we could understand what happened in
the memory, as if they had to tell it to someone. Instructions for the memory were drawn from past research on
this topic (Alea & Vick, 2010; Philippe et al., 2013; Singer& Salovey, 1993).

Memory need satisfaction
Participants and partners were asked to rate the satisfaction of their three basic psychological needs in theirmemory: “Think back to how you experienced the eventor moment you described above when it occurred andrespond to each of the following statements.” Ratings
were made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from −3(strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), with 0

corresponding to Do not agree nor disagree or not applicable – this latter option indicating that there was either
an equal level of both need satisfaction and need thwarting or that the event was neither characterised by needthwarting nor need satisfaction. Two items assessed eachneed and the six items were averaged to create a global
score of memory need satisfaction. Sample items were “I
felt free to do things and to think how I wanted” (autonomy), “I felt competent or capable” (competence), and “I
felt connected to one or more people” (relatedness).
Alphas were .77 for men and .71 for women. Participants
and partners also rated the personal valence of the eventon a scale ranging from −3 (very negative) to +3 (very positive). An example of a participant’s memory is
My boyfriend and I made a trip to New York. On a beautiful
evening, we walked on the Brooklyn Bridge. It was so niceout there that we stopped to admire the view. At that very
moment, he proposed to me. I could not believe it. Although
we had not been together for a long time, I felt that thetiming was right.

Need satisfaction in the partner’s memory
All participants were presented with their partners’
memory description and asked to rate their own level ofneed satisfaction when they experienced the event
described by their partner’s memory. Items and response
scales were the same as those assessing need satisfactionin their own memory. Alphas were .63 for men and .80
for women. All participants also rated the personalvalence of their partners’ memory on a scale ranging
from −3 (very negative) to +3 (very positive). An example
of a partner’s memory is
I can’t get this image out of my head. When our ﬁrst child wasborn, the doctor placed her in my girlfriend’s arms. I remember
the moment when she held our child for the ﬁrst time. It was abeautiful moment.

Remembrance of the partner’s memory
After being shown their partners’ memory description, participants and partners were asked to what extent theyrecalled that event on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
Not at all to Strongly. Mean recall was 6.75 (SD = 0.63) for
men and 6.71 (SD = 0.90) for women, thus ascertainingthat all partners’ memories were, on average, well recollected by the other partner.

Signiﬁcance of the partner’s memory
Participants were asked how signiﬁcant (important) theyfound their own and their partners’ memory on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from Not at all to Strongly. Mean signiﬁcance of men’s memory was 6.43 (SD = 0.85) for men and6.26 (SD = 1.02) for women and mean signiﬁcance of
women’s memory was 6.40 (SD = 0.79) for women and6.24 (SD = 1.16) for men. Paired t-tests revealed no signiﬁcant differences in perceptions of signiﬁcance, t(67) = 1.17,
ns for men’s memory and t(67) = 1.10, ns for women’s

MEMORY

memory, thus conﬁrming that men and women perceived
the memory of their partners as signiﬁcant as did theirpartners.

Procedure
For the purpose of clearly delineating the method used in
the present procedure section, people who initially took
part in the study will be designated as “participants”, andtheir romantic partners, who were invited to participate
afterwards, will be labelled “partners”. The participantsﬁrst completed an online questionnaire about theircurrent romantic relationship. Participants completed thepersonality trait measure and indicated their need satisfaction in the relationship and their commitment to theirpartner. Next, participants were asked to describe a signiﬁcant (important) memory about their relationship.
1
After the memory description, participants were asked
to rate the valence of their memory and were asked to rate
their need satisfaction in the memory described. At the endof the questionnaire, participants were asked to provide
the email of their partner. These partners were theninvited to complete the same online questionnaire. At
the end of the questionnaire, the partners were presented
with the participants’ memory description and asked toindicate their own level of need satisfaction for thatevent. Finally, participants were contacted again and presented with their partners’ memory description andasked to rate their own level of need satisfaction experienced during the event described by their partners. The
data analysed in this study are part of a larger study,
which involved a second phase in laboratory. Only theﬁrst phase will be analysed in this article. Participants andpartners each received $25 in compensation for theirtime at the end of the second phase.
A total of 111 participants completed the ﬁrst questionnaire and they all (except one participant) provided theirpartners’ email. Of this number, 74 partners completed
their questionnaire. Finally, 68 participants completed thelast questionnaire and were retained for the ﬁnal analyses.
We tested whether couples that completed the wholestudy were signiﬁcantly different from those who
dropped out. There were no signiﬁcant differences on all
variables, except one. Commitment was higher for
women who completed the study (M = 6.30, SD = 0.80)
than for those who dropped out (M = 5.89, SD = 1.19), t(109) = 2.16, p < .05, d = .41. Effect size was medium. Commitment was not signiﬁcantly different between men
who completed the study (M = 6.10, SD = 0.96) and those
who dropped out (M = 6.02, SD = 0.94), t(77) = 0.44, ns.

599“participant” and “partner”, we now identify them as men
and women. Reference to partners should thus be understood as any of the two romantic partners in a relationship.
First, gender differences were tested with paired t-tests
and correlational analyses were conducted at the dyad
level between men’s and women’s variables.
A dyadic path analysis was conducted in Mplus 7 using
the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006) to test whether need satisfaction in
the couple-related memory of each partner was related totheir commitment. This analysis permits to control for the
non-independence of the data and to investigate both
actor effects (e.g., the effect of women’s memory need satisfaction on their own commitment ratings) and partner
effects (e.g., the effect of women’s memory need satisfaction
on their male partners’ commitment) at the same time.
Gender differences were evaluated in the model (e.g., does
the association between women’s memory need satisfaction
and women’s commitment differ from the association
between men’s memory need satisfaction and men’s commitment?) by constraining speciﬁc paths coefﬁcients
across gender to be equal (see Kenny et al., 2006). Modelﬁt discrepancies between the freely estimated model (original non-constrained model) and the constrained model provides information on whether the constrained coefﬁcientsdiffer from each other across gender (Kline, 2011). Basedon Chen (2007) and Cheung and Rensvold (2002), Marshet al. (2013) suggest not using only the chi-square, which issample-size dependent, but to use the changes in the goodness of ﬁt of the TLI and RMSEA. If the decrease in ﬁt for theconstrained model is less than .01 for the TLI and that the
RMSEA increases by less than .015, then there is reasonablesupport for the constrained model.
In the path analysis, we also used bootstrapping toassess the robustness of each association. This techniqueconsists in computerised draws of n cases with replacement from the current sample. For each draw, the association between x and y is calculated, and that for k draws(usually k = 5000). These estimates can be ordered fromthe lowest to the highest coefﬁcient obtained for x → y,from which a 95% conﬁdence interval can be calculated.
A bootstrap 95% conﬁdence interval that does notinclude the value zero suggests that the effect is signiﬁcant
at p < .05. This technique approximates the sampling distribution of the population and therefore provides morerobust coefﬁcient estimates in small sample sizes.
Finally, it is also recommended to use bias-correctedbootstrap 95% conﬁdence interval estimates to test forthe signiﬁcance of mediations and of their indirect
effects in path analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrap
95% conﬁdence intervals not including the value zerosuggest that the indirect effect is signiﬁcant at p < .05.

Results
Data analyses

Gender differences

Results were analysed as a function of the gender of participants. Therefore, rather than distinguishing people by

Paired t-tests revealed that there was a marginal difference
between men’s (M = 6.10, SD = 0.96) and women’s (M =

600

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

6.30, SD = 0.80) commitment, t(67) = 1.78, p < .10, showingthat women were slightly more committed than men. In
addition, the difference between women’s (M = 2.28, SD= 0.63) need satisfaction ratings of their own memory
and men’s (M = 1.99, SD = 0.88) need satisfaction ratingsof their own memory was signiﬁcant, t(67) = 2.27, p < .05,
thus suggesting that women rated their own memory as
more need satisfying than men’s ratings of their own
memory. The difference between men’s (M = 2.07, SD =0.74) and women’s (M = 2.28, SD = 0.62) need satisfaction
ratings of women’s memories was marginally signiﬁcant,t(67) = 1.98, p < .10, whereas the difference between
men’s (M = 1.99, SD = 0.87) and women’s (M = 2.02, SD =0.95) need satisfaction ratings of men’s memories was
not signiﬁcant, t(67) = −0.31, ns

Correlational results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlational results of all study variables. As it is typically the case,both women’s and men’s commitment were positively correlated with each other (r = .48, 95% CI [.18, .68]), as well as
were women’s and men’s ratings of need satisfaction in therelationship (r = .24, 95% CI [.02, .45]). Correlations amongmemory need satisfaction ratings were also examined.
Women’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory
were uncorrelated with men’s need satisfaction ratings oftheir own memory (r = .00, 95% CI [−.22, .27]). Moreover,men’s need satisfaction ratings of their female partners’
memory were also not correlated with women’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory (r = .10, 95% CI [−.15,.32]). In contrast, women’s need satisfaction ratings of theirmale partners’ memory were positively correlated withmen’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory (r= .45, 95% CI [.05, .70]). These results suggest a perceived
reciprocity about the relationship from both partners interms of commitment and need satisfaction ratings ofthe relationship, but only women’s need satisfaction
experience of a past couple-related event seems to correspond to the need satisfaction experience of their malepartners for the same event. Men’s need satisfaction
experience in a past event selected by their female partners seems to differ from how their female partners’ experienced that event in terms of need satisfaction.
Furthermore, men’s need satisfaction ratings of theirown memory was positively correlated with men’s needsatisfaction ratings of their female partners’ memory (r= .37, 95% CI [.14, .58]), but the same association was notsupported for women’s ratings (r = .11, 95% CI [−.07,.34]). These results suggest that men rated their own
memory and their female partners’ memory somewhat
more similarly in terms of need satisfaction than did
women. As a consequence, the correlation between
men’s need satisfaction ratings of their female partners’
memory and women’s need satisfaction ratings of theirown memory was lower (r = .10) than the correlation
between women’s need satisfaction ratings of their malepartners’ memory and men’s need satisfaction ratings oftheir own memory (r = .45), as explained above.

Dyadic path analysis
A dyadic path analysis was tested with women’s and men’sneed satisfaction ratings of their own memory as well as of
their partners’ memory as exogenous variables. Women’s
and men’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationshipand commitment to the relationship were included as
endogenous dependent variables, with relationship needsatisfaction modelled to mediate the associations
between memory need satisfaction and commitment.
Covariances were estimated between partners’ need satisfaction ratings of the relationship as well as between partners’ commitment to account for their non-independence.
The estimation method consisted of Robust Maximum Likelihood. The estimated model was a just-identiﬁed model
therefore yielding a perfect ﬁt to the data. Figure 1 presents
the standardised path coefﬁcients of the path analysis andthe results of this model are described in the following sections.2 Table 2 shows the coefﬁcients and bootstrap 95%
conﬁdence intervals for all direct effects. First, direct
effects of need satisfaction ratings of memories on commitment are outlined, followed by their indirect effects oncommitment through need satisfaction ratings of therelationship (mediations), and ﬁnally their dyadic (crosspartner) effects.

Direct effect of one’s memory on one’s commitment
The path analysis showed a direct and positive effect ofwomen’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory
on women’s commitment independently of their need satisfaction ratings of the relationship. No direct association ofmen’s need satisfaction ratings of their memory was foundon men’s commitment. An equality constraint was
imposed on these paths (men’s coefﬁcient constrained toequal women’s coefﬁcient). Results revealed almost nochanges in the goodness of ﬁt, therefore suggesting thatthe size of the coefﬁcients do not differ between men
and women (see Table 3, C1).
Women’s need satisfaction ratings of their male partners’ memory did not predict women’s commitment, andmen’s need satisfaction ratings of their female partners’
memory did not relate to men’s commitment. Therefore,
the pattern of association between memory and commitment seems to be driven by the memory self-selected as
signiﬁcant, but not by the one selected by the partner.

Indirect effect of memories on commitment
As for the association between memory need satisfaction
and relationship need satisfaction, results indicated thatmen’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory
were associated with men’s need satisfaction ratings ofthe relationship. On the other hand, women’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory were not associatedwith women’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship.

.04
.35**
−.02
.35**

.12
−.04
.01
.06
.19
.18
.23
.09

–
−.08
.19
−.03
.04
−.09
.09
−.05
.14
−.07
.10
−.50**
−.21
−.16
−.16
.09
−.16
−.08
−.10
.04

–
−.01
.08
−.12
−.14
−.12
.27*
−.14
.11
−.18
−.06
−.18
.12

–
−.10
−.47**.09−.33**
−.21
−.15
−.21
.06
−.22
−.20
−.18

–

–

6
5
4
3
2
1
SD
M

1. W’s extraversion
4.71
1.54
–
2. M’s extraversion
4.51
1.33
−.13
3. W’s neuroticism
4.20
1.09
−.05
4. M’s neuroticism
3.04
1.30
−.24
5. W’s agreeableness
4.37
0.84
.20
6. M’s agreeableness
4.33
1.00
.03
7. W’s NS in the relationship
5.87
0.85
.08
8. M’s NS in the relationship
5.67
0.85
−.06
9. W’s commitment
6.30
0.80
−.11
10. M’s commitment
6.10
0.96
−.20
11. W’s NS in own memory
2.28
0.63
.22
12. M’s NS in own memory
1.99
0.88
−.25*
13. W’s NS in partners’ memory
2.02
0.95
−.17
14. M’s NS in partners’ memory
2.07
0.75
−.10
Note: N = 68. W = Women; M = Men; NS = Need satisfaction.
p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

Variables

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between need satisfaction in memories, in the relationship and commitment.

7

–
.24*
.54**
.29*
.16
.32**
.20
.04

8

–
.15
.45**
−.02
.42**
.05
.39**

–

9

.48**
.29*
.37**
.20
.01

–

10

11

–
.00
.11
.10

12

–
.45**
.37**

13

–
−.01

MEMORY

601

A model with an equality constraint on these paths
revealed virtually no change in goodness of ﬁt, thus
suggesting that these coefﬁcients are not signiﬁcantly
different for men and women (see Table 3, C2).
Results also showed that men’s need satisfaction ratingsof their female partners’ memory were associated withmen’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship.
However, women’s need satisfaction ratings of their malepartners’ memory were not related to women’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship. A model constraining
these two paths to be equal revealed large ﬁt discrepancy,
therefore suggesting that these paths are characterised bygender differences (see Table 3, C3).
Results further showed that men’s need satisfaction
ratings of their own memory and of their female partners’
memory had an indirect association with their own commitment through men’s need satisfaction ratings of therelationship. Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% conﬁdence
interval suggested that these mediations are signiﬁcant[.02; .29] and [.00; .29], respectively, p < .05. However,there was no indirect inﬂuence of women’s need satisfaction ratings of their own or of their male partners’
memory on women’s commitment through women’sneed satisfaction ratings of the relationship since
women’s memory ratings were not associated with theirneed satisfaction ratings of the relationship. Bias-correctedbootstrap 95% conﬁdence interval further suggests these
mediations to be non-signiﬁcant [−.02; .24] and [−.10;.09], respectively.

Direct dyadic (cross-partner) effect of memories
Men’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory werepositively associated with women’s commitment.
However, there was no direct effect of women’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory on men’s commitment. An equality constraint between men and womenon these paths revealed large model ﬁt discrepancy, therefore suggesting that the coefﬁcients for this particular path
differ between males and females (see Table 3, C4). Thus,
how men (but not women) perceive important past
events related to their current romantic relationship interms of need satisfaction seems to be directly associatedwith their partners’ commitment, over and above bothpartners’ perceived need satisfaction ratings of therelationship.

Indirect dyadic (cross-partner) effect of memories
Results showed that men’s need satisfaction ratings of theirown memory were related to women’s need satisfaction
ratings of the relationship. Yet, women’s need satisfaction
ratings of their own memory were not related to men’sneed satisfaction of the relationship. An equality constraint
between men and women on these paths revealed large
model ﬁt discrepancy, therefore suggesting that there isa signiﬁcant gender difference for this relationship (seeTable 3, C5). As for the association between ratings of thepartners’ memory and ratings of the relationship, men’s

602

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Figure 1. Path analysis of the association between need satisfaction in couple-related memories and commitment. Note: Only signiﬁcant paths and covariances are reported. Standardised coefﬁcients are shown in the ﬁgure. Exogenous covariances represent correlations between variables. *p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001.

Table 2. Standardised path coefﬁcients estimated from the model (P) and bootstrap 95% conﬁdence intervals for these estimates (95% CI).
W’s NS in therelationship

M’s NS in therelationship

W’s commitment

M’s commitment

Predictors

P

95% CIP

95% CIP

95% CIP

95% CI

W’s NS in own memory
M’s NS in own memory
W’s NS in partners’ memory
M’s NS in partners’ memory
W’s NS in the relationship
M’s NS in the relationship

.17
.34*
.04
−.10
–
–

[−.10; .47][.03; .64][−.26; .23][−.37; .19]
–
–

−.04
.38**
−.11
.26*
–
–

[−.35; .21][.09; .64][−.30; .09][−.03; .56]
–
–

.25*
.33*
−.06
−.14
.42**
−.03

[.01; .62][.03, .58][−.23; .13][−.36; .05][.19; .58][−.20; .16]

.01
.18
−.15
.17
.19
.26*

[−.37; .48][−.05; .57][−.36; .09][−.10; .50][−.12; .60][.06; .63]

Note: N = 68. W: Women; M: Men; NS: Need satisfaction; CI: Conﬁdence intervals.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

Table 3. Fit indices of the constrained models across men and women.
Equality constraints

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

C1. W’s NS in own memory → W’s commitment &M’s Ns in own memory → M’s commitment
C2. W’s NS in own memory → W’s NS in the relationship &M’s NS in own memory → M’s NS in the relationship
C3. W’s NS in partners’ memory → W’s NS in the relationship &M’s NS in partners’ memory → M’s NS in the relationship
C4. W’s NS in own memory → M’s commitment &M’s NS in own memory → W’s commitment
C5. W’s NS in own memory → M’s NS in the relationship &M’s NS in own memory → W’s NS in the relationship

0.33

1

1.00

1.17

.00

0.56

1

1.00

1.11

.00

1.79

1

.99

.80

.11

1.40

1

1.00

.90

.08

4.90

1

.96

.01

.24

Notes: Original non-constrained model has zero degree of freedom and has therefore a perfect ﬁt to the data with χ 2 = 0, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, and RMSEA= .00. It is possible for the TLI and RMSEA in constrained models to yield better values of ﬁt given that these indices incorporate a penalty for lack ofparsimony (constrained models are more parsimonious, see Marsh et al., 2013).
C: Constraint; W: Women; M: Men; NS: Need satisfaction;need satisfaction ratings of their female partners’ memory
were not related to women’s need satisfaction ratings ofthe relationship nor were women’s need satisfaction
ratings of their male partners’ memory related to men’sneed satisfaction ratings of the relationship.
Results further showed that men’s need satisfaction
ratings of their own memory were indirectly associatedwith women’s commitment through women’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship. Bias-corrected bootstrap
95% conﬁdence intervals suggested this indirect effect tobe signiﬁcant [.01; .34], p < .05. No indirect effect ofwomen’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memory
was found on men’s commitment through men’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship since women’s need

MEMORY

satisfaction ratings of their own memory were not related
to men’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship.
Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% conﬁdence intervals
suggested that this indirect effect is not signiﬁcant [−.13;.07], ns. Overall, these results suggest that men’s perceptions of important couple-related events relate to
women’s commitment, both directly and indirectly.

Discussion
The objective of the present study was to provide a better
understanding of how memories can differentially inﬂuence both partners of a romantic relationship. Results
revealed that men’s need satisfaction ratings of their own
memories were related to men’s need satisfaction ratingsof their female partners’ memories, whereas women’sneed satisfaction ratings of their own memories was lessstrongly associated with their need satisfaction ratings oftheir male partners’ memories. This result suggests thatmen may tend to remember different events related totheir relationship as more similar than women do. In linewith this ﬁnding, previous research has demonstrated
that women think about their romantic relationship withmore complexity than men (Acitelli & Young, 1996). In
addition, women reported higher scores of need satisfaction for their own memory as compared to how men
rated their female partners’ memory, while women’s andmen’s need satisfaction ratings of men’s memories did
not differ signiﬁcantly. This latter result may suggest thatwomen chose couple-related memories that were moreneed satisfying or that they tend to rate their own
couple-related memories as being more need satisfying
than men. Previous research showing that women rate
their couple-related memories as having more personal
importance than men suggests that the latter hypothesis
could be more likely (Ross & Holmberg, 1992). Also noteworthy is that each partner’s need satisfaction ratings oftheir own memory were associated with their own commitment to the relationship directly (for women and men) as
well as through their own need satisfaction ratings of therelationship (for men). Of importance, men’s need satisfaction ratings of their own memories were positively linked
to women’s commitment, over and above both partners’
perceptions of need satisfaction in the relationship.
However, no such cross-partner effects emerged for
women.

Memories are related to one’s own commitment
directly and indirectly
Partners’ own memories were found to be related to theirown commitment to the relationship directly (for womenand men) and indirectly (for men) through their own
need satisfaction ratings of the relationship. The association between couple-related memories and relationshipquality is supported by previous research on memories(Alea & Vick, 2010; Philippe et al., 2013). This study adds603

to the current literature by showing that need satisfaction
ratings of a couple-related memory relate not only topeople’s ratings of their relationship, but also to their commitment to the relationship. Signiﬁcant couple-related
memories are likely to be chronically accessible and may
be triggered by environmental cues, thought-about, or
shared more frequently (Alea & Bluck, 2007; Philippe
et al., 2013). The recurrent activation of need-satisfying
memories about the relationship will shape partners’ attitude towards the romantic relationship and result in a perception that the relationship satisﬁes their psychologicalneeds, which, in turn, is likely to lead to greater commitment to the relationship. In support of this hypothesised
sequence, Kuwabara and Pillemer (2010) found that theactivation of a positive personal memory had an impact
on people’s subsequent intentions and behaviour.
Additionally, others have found that remembering acouple-related memory has an inﬂuence on people’s perceptions of their romantic relationship (speciﬁcally, that it
increases feelings of warmth for men and women, and closeness for women only; Alea & Bluck, 2007). The present
study suggests that these activated memories will directly
shape partners’ commitment to the relationship so that signiﬁcant memories that are highly need satisfying will leadto greater commitment to the relationship. For men, thisrelationship is also mediated by their need satisfaction
ratings of the relationship such that the more need satisfying they rated their couple-related memory, the more needsatisfying they perceived their relationship to be, which
was associated with higher commitment to therelationship.

Cross-partner effects of couple-related memories
A noteworthy ﬁnding of the present study is that men’s
memory encoding was related to women’s reported commitment directly as well as through women’s need satisfaction ratings of the relationship, independently of the way
women remembered the events of men’s memories. Thisis the ﬁrst study to our knowledge that shows that aperson’s own memory can be linked to his/her romantic
partners’ engagement. It may be that partners’ encoding
and subsequent reconstruction of important couplerelated events inﬂuence their attitudes and behaviours
towards their partners. To the extent that they hold signiﬁcant need-satisfying couple-related memories, their behaviour towards their partner will be shaped in a way that is
consistent with how these memories are represented intheir memory system, and they will therefore act with amore caring or committed attitude towards their partner.
These behaviours will lead their partner to feel more committed to the relationship and perceive their needs to be
more satisﬁed in the relationship, which will in turn also
lead to more commitment. This interpretation is in accordance with past research on couple-related memories (e.g.,
Philippe et al., 2012, 2013). Furthermore, in the relationship
literature, studies have found that people’s behaviours in a

604

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

romantic relationship inﬂuence partners’ satisfaction(Brock & Lawrence, 2009; Jensen et al., 2013) and commitment (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Stanley, Markman, &Whitton, 2002), and that people’s perceptions of therelationship relate to their relationship satisfaction(Buunk, 2001; Neff & Karney, 2003).
In the present study, this pattern of results was only
found between men’s memories and women’s commitment (and not between women’s memories and men’scommitment). This gender difference is in line withresearch suggesting that women may be more sensitive
to their partners’ behaviours in the relationship (Acitelli,
1992; Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Acitelli & Young, 1996;
Julien & Markman, 1991), perhaps because they havebeen socialised to attend more to relational cues thanmen (Crawford & Chafﬁn, 1997). Correspondingly, several
studies have found that men’s behaviours affect women’s
attitudes, but not the inverse. For example, social support
provided by husbands inﬂuences women’s marital satisfaction more than wives’ social support affects men’s maritalsatisfaction (Julien & Markman, 1991). Men’s support provision is predictive of both men’s and women’s marital satisfaction, whereas women’s support provision does not
relate to men’s marital satisfaction (Jensen et al., 2013).
Greater discussion of the relationship by men in an interview is associated with higher relationship satisfaction for
women, whereas this effect is not observed for men (Acitelli, 1992). Overall, it seems that women’s perceptions
about the relationship are consistently more affected by
men’s attitudes and behaviours than men’s perceptions
about the relationship are by women’s behaviours. Thus,
it is possible that men’s memories have a stronger effecton women than women’s memories have on men.
However, the postulate that the effect of memories is transmitted through behaviours toward the other partner
cannot be conﬁrmed by the present study so further
research will be needed to shed more light on the speciﬁc
process through which memories inﬂuence partners’ attitudes and perceptions.

Limitations
Some limitations regarding the present study should beunderscored. First, the data analysed are cross-sectional
which does not allow us to determine whether partners’
memories inﬂuence commitment or whether commitment
affects the encoding and reconstruction of couple-related
memories or both. Longitudinal studies will be required
to tease out the direction of this relationship. A second
limitation is that all measures are self-reported. Althoughneed satisfaction either self-reported or coded fromjudges are strongly correlated (Philippe et al., 2011) andthat cross-partner effects are shown in the present study,
it would still be informative to show that couple-related
memories can have an impact on actual couple-related
behaviours. Third, this study only assessed positive
couple-related memories. An interesting avenue for

future research would be to look at the impact of negative
couple-related memories as well as positive ones on partners’ commitment and investigate if results are the sameacross both types of memories. A fourth limitation concerns our sample. The sample consisted of highly committed couples (high means on commitment for both
men and women and women who dropped out from thestudy were slightly lower on commitment). Therefore,
results may not apply directly to couples with lower
levels of commitment. Also, participants had been involvedin their romantic relationship for an average of four years
and a half. Results may not generalise to couples thathave been together for a decade or more. In addition,
the sample of this study was moderate in size. Thus,
although most results are consistent with the literature(e.g., Bodenmann et al., 2006; Jensen et al., 2013; Philippe
et al., 2013), results of this study should be replicatedwithin a larger sample. Nonetheless, the present research
provides initial ﬁndings showing that a person’s own memories can impact another person’s attitudes even whencontrolling for the other person’s memories of the same
event.

Notes
1. Following Philippe et al.’s (2015) recommendations, generalquestionnaires were assessed before memory questionnaires
to avoid priming effects from memory descriptions.
2. The path analysis was conducted again while controlling formen’s and women’s extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness,signiﬁcance of their own and their partners’ memory, remembrance of their partners’ memory, or participants’ age andvalence of their memory and results remained virtually thesame (signiﬁcant paths remained signiﬁcant at the same pvalue).

Disclosure statement
The authors declare no ﬁnancial interest or beneﬁt arising from theapplications of this research.
No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding information
This research was supported by a Master’s scholarship from the Fonds
de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture (FRQSC) awarded toValerie Guilbault and a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada awarded to Frederick L. Philippe [grant
number 435-2012-1358].

References
Acitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness andmarital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 102–110. doi:10.1177/
0146167292181015
Acitelli, L. K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1994). Gender differences in the link
between marital support and satisfaction in older couples. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 688–698. doi:00223514/94/S3.00

MEMORY

Acitelli, L. K., & Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures inclose relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 147–168),
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Acker, M., & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in
adult romantic relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(1), 21–50. doi:10.1177/
0265407592091002
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptualmodel of the social function of autobiographical memory. Memory,11(2), 165–178. doi:10.1080/741938207
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I’ll keep you in mind: The intimacy functionof autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(8),1091–1111. doi:10.1002/acp.1316
Alea, N., & Vick, S. C. (2010). The ﬁrst sight of love: Relationship-deﬁning
memories and marital satisfaction across adulthood. Memory, 18,
730–742. doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.506443
Bazzini, D. G., Stack, E. R., Martincin, P. D., & Davis, C. P. (2007). The
effect of reminiscing about laughter on relationship satisfaction.
Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 25–34. doi:10.1007/s11031-0069045-6
Ben-Ari, A., & Lavee, Y. (2005). Dyadic characteristics of individual attributes: Attachment, neuroticism, and their relation to marital quality
and closeness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(4), 621–631.
doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.621
Biondolillo, M. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (2015). Using memories to motivate
future behaviour: An experimental exercise intervention. Memory,23(3), 390–402. doi:10.1080/09658211.2014.889709
Bloise, S. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2007). Memory for emotional and neutral
information: Gender and individual differences in emotional sensitivity. Memory, 15(2), 192–204. doi:10.1080/09658210701204456
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between
dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. doi:10.1037/08933200.20.3.485
Britt, S. L., & Roy, R. R. N. (2014). Relationship quality among young
couples from an economic and gender perspective. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 35(2), 241–250. doi:10.1007/s10834013-9368-x
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2009). Too much of a good thing:
Underprovision versus overprovision of partner support. Journalof Family Psychology, 23(2), 181–192. doi:10.1037/a0015402.
Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination and sexual
experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 970–987. doi:10.1177/0146167213485442
Buunk, B. P. (2001). Perceived superiority of one’s own relationship andperceived prevalence of happy and unhappy relationships. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 565–574. doi:10.1348/
014466601164984
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of ﬁt indices to lack ofmeasurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit
Indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_5
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological
Review, 107(2), 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
Conway, M. A., Singer, J. A., & Tagini, A. (2004). The self and autobiographical memory: Correspondence and coherence. Social Cognition,
22(5), 491–529. doi:10.1521/soco.22.5.491.50768
Crawford, M., & Chafﬁn, R. (1997). The meanings of difference: Cognition
in social and cultural context. In P. J. Caplan, M. Crawford, J. S. Hyde, &J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), Gender differences in human cognition (pp.
81–130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory forchildhood emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(3), 498–510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.498

605

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. PsychologicalInquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Etcheverry, P. E., & Le, B. (2005). Thinking about commitment:
Accessibility of commitment and prediction of relationshippersistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacriﬁce.
Personal Relationships, 12(1), 103–123. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.
2005.00104.x
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research
in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Grysman, A. (2014). The roles of gender and temporal distance in therecall of dissonant self-related memories. Consciousness and cognition, 29, 10–22.
Grysman, A., & Hudson, J. A. (2013). Gender differences in autobiographical memory: Developmental and methodological considerations. Developmental Review, 33(3), 239–272. doi:10.1016/j.dr.
2013.07.004
Holland, A. S., & Roisman, G. I. (2008). Big Five personality traits andrelationships quality: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5),811–829. doi:10.1177/0265407508096697
Jensen, J. F., Rauer, A. M., & Volling, B. (2013). A dyadic view of support
in marriage: The critical role of men’s support provision. Sex roles, 68(7–8), 427–438. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0256-x
Julien, D., & Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks
as determinants of individual and marital outcomes. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 8(4), 549–568. doi:10.1177/
026540759184006
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions andthe evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions.
Psychological Review, 109(2), 306–329. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.
109.2.306
Klein, S. B., & Loftus, J. (1993). The mental representation of trait andautobiographical knowledge about the self. In T. K. Scrull & R. S.
Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 5, pp. 1–49).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kuwabara, K. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (2010). Memories of past episodes
shape current intentions and decisions. Memory, 18(4), 365–374.
doi:10.1080/09658211003670857
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R., Couchman, C., & Deci, E. (2000). Withinperson variation in security of attachment: A self-determination
theory perspective on attachment, need fulﬁllment, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010).
Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta‐
analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. doi:10.
1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafreniere, M.-A. K., Parker, P., Morin,
A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., … Paquet, Y. (2013). Passion: Does one
scale ﬁt all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages.
Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796–809. doi:10.1037/a0032573
Milyavskaya, M., Philippe, F. L., & Koestner, R. (2013). Psychologicalneed satisfaction across levels of experience: Their organizationand contribution to general well-being. Journal of Research in
Personality, 47(1), 41–51. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.013
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationshipperceptions: Differential importance as a strategy of relationshipmaintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11),1433–1446. doi:10.1177/0146167203256376
Niedźwieńska, A. (2003). Gender differences in vivid memories. Sex
Roles, 49(7), 321–331.

606

V. GUILBAULT AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Philippe, F. L., Bouizegarene, N., Guilbault, V., Rajotte, G., & Houle, I. (2015).
The chicken or the egg? Systematic investigation of the effect of orderof administration of Memory Questionnaires and Well-being Scales.
Memory, 23(7), 1056–1069. doi:10.1080/09658211.2014.953547
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., & Lecours, S. (2011). The
role of need satisfaction as a distinct and basic psychologicalcomponent of autobiographical memories: A look at well-being.
Journal of Personality, 79(5), 905–938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.
00710.x
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Lecours, S., & Lekes, N.
(2012). The role of episodic memories in current and future wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0146167211429805
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2013). On the directive functionof episodic memories in people’s lives: A look at romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 164–179.
doi:10.1037/a0030384
Pillemer, D. B. (2003). Directive functions of autobiographical memory:
The guiding power of the speciﬁc episode. Memory, 11(2), 193–202.
doi:10.1080/741938208
Pillemer, D., Wink, P., DiDonato, T., & Sanborn, R. (2003). Gender differences in autobiographical memory styles of older adults. Memory,
11(6), 525–532. doi:10.1080/09658210244000117
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Ramirez, A. (2008). An examination of the tripartite approach to commitment: An actor-partner interdependence model analysis of the effectof relational maintenance behavior. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25(6), 943–965. doi:10.1177/0265407508100309

Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2009). The possible functions of involuntary autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
23(8), 1137–1152. doi:10.1002/acp.1615
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000).
Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435.
doi:10.1177/0146167200266002
Ross, M., & Holmberg, D. (1992). Are wives’ memories for events inrelationships more vivid than their husbands’ memories? Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 9(4), 585–604. doi:10.1177/
0265407592094007
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model
Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality ofalternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–
391. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a goodday? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1270–1279.
doi:10.1177/01461672962212007
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic
relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal ofSocial and Personal relationships, 8(2), 217–242. doi:10.1177/
0265407591082004
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication,
conﬂict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659–675.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological review,
93(2), 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119