Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2013, Vol. 104, No. 1, 164 –179

© 2012 American Psychological Association
0022-3514/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030384

On the Directive Function of Episodic Memories in People’s Lives:
A Look at Romantic Relationships
Frederick L. Philippe

Richard Koestner and Natasha Lekes

University of Quebec at Montreal

McGill University

We argue that episodic memories have an active and directive function with respect to a number ofrelational outcomes. In line with self-determination theory, it is expected that the satisfaction of 3 needs(autonomy, competence, relatedness) in couple-related memories facilitates the quality of romantic
relationships and their development. Results of 4 studies support this contention. Study 1 showed thatneed satisfaction in couple-related memories was associated with relationship quality, even after
controlling for other important relational constructs. Study 2 underscored the context-dependent aspectof the directive function of episodic memories. Need satisfaction in couple-related memories was foundto be associated with partner relationship quality but not with friendship quality, whereas need satisfaction in friend-related memories was associated with friendship quality but not with partner relationshipquality. Study 3 showed that couple-related memories contributed independently to each partner’s
perceptions of relationship quality, that is, both the rememberer and the partner. Study 4 showed thelong-term directive function of episodic memories. Need satisfaction in couple-related memories positively and negatively predicted increases in relationship quality and the likelihood of a breakup over a
1-year period, respectively. This directive function of memories was examined along with the self
function of memories (self-enhancement, self-protection) and shown to be complementary. We also
examined the stability of need satisfaction in couple-related memories over time and investigated thisstability as a function of whether the partners had broken up or not over the year. Overall, the findings
suggest that episodic memories play an important role in romantic relationships.
Keywords: episodic memories, need satisfaction, directive function, couple relationshiptheir relationship and influence their future relationship outcomesover and above their attachment style or the perceptions of eachother’s need fulfillment? For how long will this memory impact
their relationship? In the present research, we seek to provide
answers to these questions. Using a functional perspective of
episodic memories, we argue that significant episodic memories
such as the one above have a directive force on the interactions
between the partners of a couple, which in turn influence theirromantic lives.

My partner and I were visiting a house with our real estate broker. We
had visited about 20 other houses before, without finding the rightone. I remember that when we finished the visit, thanked the owner,
and went outside, my partner and I quickly glimpsed at each other incomplicity, without saying anything. We then told our broker that we
wanted to make an offer on that house. He looked a bit confused, as
he could not understand how we could have reached this decision soquickly. Driving back home, we tried to explain to him that we were
sure that this was the house we needed. He was so confused that hehad to stop the car on the side of the road, which made us laugh. Webought the house, and we have lived happily in it since then.

On the Function of Memories
What is the role of such a memory in these partners’ lives? How
may such a specific and significant memory define the quality ofMemory research during the twentieth century has focusedheavily on the study of memory accuracy. In the last decades,
however, research has started to investigate the function of episodic memories, that is, their role in people’s lives, regardless of
their accuracy. The starting point of this recent research avenue isthat episodic memories, as they are encoded or remembered bypeople, constitute an important source of information that can beused to build one’s identity, connect with others, or guide behavior(Bluck, 2003; Pillemer, 2001; Robinson, 1986). This research has
underscored three general functions played by episodic memories
in people’s lives: the self, social, and directive functions. The self
function is concerned with how memories are used to promote a
sense of identity coherence over time (Conway, Singer, & Tagini,2004) or to protect the self, such as through the self-enhancementof one’s past successes or the diminished perceived importanceand emotional consequences of past failures (Wilson & Ross,

This article was published Online First October 22, 2012.
Frederick L. Philippe, Department of Psychology, University of Quebec
at Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Richard Koestner and Natasha
Lekes, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
This research was funded by doctoral scholarships (first and third
author) and grants (first and second author) from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada awarded to Frederick L. Philippe,
Richard Koestner, and Natasha Lekes.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frederick
L. Philippe, Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal,
P.O. Box 8888, Station Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8, Canada.
E-mail: philippe.frederick@uqam.ca
164

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

2003). As such, people with a positive romantic relationship may
be more likely to recall positive couple-related memories. Similarly, when recalling memories related to a relationship that ended,
people may tend to evaluate these memories as less positive thanthey were. The social function is concerned with how people use
their episodic memories in their conversation with others (Alea &Bluck, 2003) as well as the personal benefits of such sharing(Pasupathi, 2003).
The directive function, which is the main focus of the present
article, represents how memories may be intentionally or unintentionally used to influence behavior, cognition, and emotion (Pillemer, 1998, 2003). For example, research has looked at how
memories may be used to derive a lesson (Pratt, Arnold, Norris, &Filyer, 1999) or a meaning from life situations such as death(Bluck, Dirk, Mackay, & Hux, 2008). Other studies have investigated how the deliberate recollection of a memory may immediately influence behavior, cognition, and emotion (Bazzini, Stack,Martincin, & Davis, 2007; Beike, Adams, & Naufel, 2010; Josephson, Singer, & Salovey, 1996). Recent studies have also underscored that people may not be aware of the effect of the recalled
memory on their behavior (Kuwabara & Pillemer, 2010; Philippe,
Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, Lecours, & Lekes, 2012, Study 1;
Pillemer, 2003). Other studies (Philippe et al., 2012, Study 3;
Philippe, Koestner, Lecours, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Bois, 2011)
have also shown that memories can be unconsciously triggered by
specific environmental cues without active reminiscence (Conway& Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Pillemer, 2003), while still affecting
people’s cognitions and emotions outside of their awareness. As
such, couple-related memories may actively influence people’s
cognition, emotion, and behavior with their partner when thesememories are either consciously recalled or unconsciously triggered by specific environmental cues. Over time, a couple-related
memory that is frequently activated should actively contribute tobuilding enduring romantic outcomes.1
Few studies have examined the role of memories in romantic
relationships, and those few have focused on the short-term effectof memories (for an exception, see Alea & Vick, 2010). In an
experimental study, Alea and Bluck (2007) showed that having
people remember positive autobiographical memories about theircurrent romantic relationship led to a subsequent increase in perceived warmth with respect to their relationship. Similarly, Bazzini
et al. (2007) showed that couples reminiscing about a past experience involving shared laughter reported subsequent increases intheir relationship satisfaction. These studies highlight the immediate and situational effect of memories on perceived relationshipquality. However, it is also expected that, over time, the frequent
activation of a couple-related memory through deliberate recall or
unconscious activation will lead to enduring changes in the qualityof the romantic relationship. No study to our knowledge has
investigated the long-term directive function of couple-related
memories on romantic relationship outcomes. Such studies are
critical for both the relationship and memory literature, as theywould provide the first empirical evidence that couple-related
memories not only reflect common relational constructs and not
only have a transient situational effect but can also actively contribute to building important relational resources over time.
In the present research, we seek to examine how a frequently
activated couple-related memory may affect critical romantic relationship outcomes in young adults. Because relationships in165

emerging adulthood (18 to 30 years old) can evolve relatively
quickly—from initial dating to becoming engaged or ending therelationship—the dynamic nature of this sphere of life in young
adults makes it a compelling domain and population in which to
study the long-term effect of episodic memories on romantic
outcomes.

Episodic Memories and Their Experiential Component
An episodic memory is a memory for a past, usually significant,event, which preserves a trace representing what the person experienced during this initial event (Conway, 2008; Wheeler, Stuss, &Tulving, 1997)—what is called the experiential component. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), one
fundamental experiential component of people’s living experienceis the satisfaction or the thwarting of three psychological needs:
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to theneed to feel volitional and authentic in one’s actions. Competence
is defined as the need to feel effective and efficacious. Relatedness
refers to the need to feel connected, to care for others, and to becared for by others in turn. Researchers have highlighted thefundamental nature and importance of these three needs for specific events and across diverse domains and cultures (e.g., Deci etal., 2001; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001; Tay & Diener,2011). Furthermore, it has been shown that the satisfaction of theseneeds is positively associated with markers of well-being (e.g.,Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, &Reis, 1996; Sheldon & Schüler, 2011) and relationship quality(e.g., Patrick, Knee, Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007).
Because of the prominence of these needs across situations
and contexts, people should recall the level of need satisfaction
they experienced in a majority of significant episodic memories. Indeed, recent research (Philippe, Koestner, BeaulieuPelletier, & Lecours, 2011) has shown that need satisfaction in
episodic memories (either positive or negative) is a basic experiential component of such memories and is distinct fromseveral other memory characteristics examined in past memory
research (e.g., explicit and implicit motives, intrinsic and integrative memories, memory perspective, sharing, rehearsing,1
Recently, two studies showed that the deliberate recall of a couplerelated memory could affect immediate ratings of warmth (Alea & Bluck,2007) and that the valence of a couple-related memory was related tomarital satisfaction (Alea & Vick, 2010). The authors mentioned that theirresults were an illustration of the social function of memories, sincememories were used to sustain a relationship or increase intimacy. However, to us, these findings can also be explained by the directive functionof memories. In our past work, we have shown that memories have an
active force on well-being, emotion regulation and, more recently, on
work-related outcomes. For example, work-related memories, through theirconscious or unconscious activation, can affect workers’ performance overtime. These are clear effects of the directive function of memories. The
same theoretical model is applied here to romantic outcomes. It should also
be noted that it is possible for more than one function to be at play (Bluck& Alea, 2011; Pillemer, 2003, 2009), such that the same memory could bedeliberately recalled to strengthen one’s relationship and at another time be
activated outside of one’s awareness and influence one’s relationshipquality. Other evidence suggests that the directive function could behierarchically superior to the social and self functions (Bluck, Alea, Habermas, & Rubin, 2005). Whether the social, directive, or both functions areused to explain the results presented in this article, these are just different
terminologies that do not affect the empirical findings.

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

166etc.). Furthermore, research has also shown that need satisfaction in memory is empirically distinct from the valence of thememory (Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours,
2011, Studies 2 and 3; Philippe et al., 2012, Study 3) as well as
the emotions recalled from a memory (Philippe, Koestner,
Lecours, et al., 2011, Study 2). When need satisfaction is pitted
against valence or emotions recalled from memories in regression analyses, need satisfaction explains variance in outcomes
better than valence and emotions, and over and above thesevariables. In addition, the concept of need satisfaction provides
an explanation about what is positive or negative in a memory
and is grounded in a strong evidence-based theoretical framework (Deci & Ryan, 2000). For these reasons, need satisfaction
was preferred to valence in the present research.
One way episodic memories can have a directive function on
romantic outcomes is through the level of need satisfaction characterizing them. When an episodic memory is activated, its experiential component is also triggered, and it affects a person accordingly in the present (Ledoux, 1992; Philippe et al., 2012; Schwartz,
Weinberger, & Singer, 1981). Thus, the level of need satisfaction
attached to a memory should be an active ingredient influencing aperson’s attitude and behavior in the here-and-now of the situationthat triggered the memory. In line with self-determination theory,need satisfying memories should signal possibilities for psychological growth and the opportunity to build and expand the self andthe self in relation to others (Aron & Aron, 1986; Waugh &Fredrickson, 2006), whereas need thwarting memories should signal a potential threat to the self and should lead to self-closure andstrategies to protect the self (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Hodgins & Knee,
2002). If repeated over time, this process is expected to build or
hinder various important life outcomes in a stable and enduring
fashion. As such, a need satisfying couple-related memory that isfrequently activated should affect a person’s attitude and behavior
toward his or her partner, which should, over time, affect thequality of the relationship and other important relational outcomesin an enduring fashion.

Memories and Personality
Episodic memories should be considered active and independent
aspects of personality, although they should not be equated withconstructs such as traits or schemas (Bluck, 2003; McAdams &Pals, 2006; Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours,
2011; Pillemer, 2001). First, traits and schemas generally reflect
what people know about themselves or about their self (i.e.,
self-knowledge or generic knowledge about the self; Brewer,1986), whereas episodic memories represent the significant specific episodes that people experienced in their life. Although traits
may affect how people experience their life events, the way they
are remembered over time is posited to have an impact on people’s
lives, independently of their traits and schemas. To highlight thisindependent effect of memories, we controlled for a number oftrait-level variables throughout the studies, such as attachment,
general perceptions of need satisfaction, or mental health. This
also serves to underscore that memories not only reflect common
relational constructs but also have a unique effect on relational
outcomes.

Present Research
The present research was conducted to provide the first evidenceof the active force of couple-related memories on romantic relationship outcomes, including long-term effects. Study 1 investigated the association between a chronically accessible couplerelated memory and relationship quality while controlling for theeffect of important relational constructs, such as attachment andcouple relationship need satisfaction. Study 2 examined thecontext-dependent nature of episodic memories, that is, the differential predictive value of need satisfaction in a couple-related
memory and in a friendship-related memory on romantic andfriend relationship quality. This study also rules out several alternative explanations, such that people who more highly rate relationship quality might also recall memories with higher levels ofneed satisfaction. Study 3 investigated the dyadic roles of couplerelated episodic memories in both partners’ perceptions of relationship quality. Taken together, Studies 1 to 3 establish both thediscriminant and predictive validity of need satisfaction in couplerelated memories on relationship quality. Finally, Study 4 used aprospective cross-lagged design to investigate the long-term effectof memories on relationship outcomes (increases in relationshipquality or breakup) and their reciprocal association, as well as thestability over time of these memories and of their characteristic
level of need satisfaction. Overall, the present research seeks toprovide evidence of the consequences of episodic memories within
the sphere of romantic relationships.

Study 1The purpose of Study 1 was to investigate the association
between need satisfaction in episodic memories related to people’s
current romantic relationship and components of romantic relationship quality. More specifically, participants described a chronically accessible episodic memory related to their current couple
relationship and rated the level of need satisfaction they experienced during the event grounding this memory (as they remembered it). We hypothesized that the level of need satisfaction
characterizing this memory would be positively associated withperceived relationship quality. In addition, we hypothesized that
this association would hold even after controlling for other important relational constructs, such as attachment and couple relationship need satisfaction, and for contamination by extraneous variables, such as psychological symptoms. Attachment has beenshown to be a strong predictor of relationship quality (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Although it was expected that needsatisfaction in a couple-related memory would be associated with
attachment, episodic memories related to one’s current couple
relationship and attachment schemas should be, at best, moderately
overlapping constructs. The most stringent test was to control forthe need satisfaction people generally perceive in their couple
relationship. This provides strong evidence that memories andgeneral perceptions are not equivalent measures, thus increasing
the distinction between episodic memories and generic selfknowledge. Finally, it has been shown that people with psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, somatization)
often recall more negative memories (e.g., Brittlebank, Scoot,
Williams, & Ferrier, 1993); these memories may perhaps be
characterized by a lower level of need satisfaction. While thiseffect may be expected, it should be independent of the rela-

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

tionship between need satisfaction in couple-related memories
and relationship quality.

MethodParticipants. A total of 198 undergraduate and graduate students (152 female, 46 male) were recruited from a Canadianuniversity. In all studies of the present research, graduate students
were also recruited in order to increase sample representativenessand to obtain responders who were more likely to be involved ina serious long-term relationship. At the time of the study, allparticipants were involved in a romantic relationship that had
lasted for at least 3 months (M ⫽ 47.78 months, SD ⫽ 51.79
months). Four participants were in a homosexual relationship andtwo others refused to report their sexual orientation. The mean age
was 25.87 (SD ⫽ 6.74). The vast majority of this sample (79.3%)
was Caucasian. In addition, there were no differences on all study
variables as a function of ethnicity. Because the proportion of
Caucasians was about the same in all studies and there were no
significant differences on any variable across ethnicities in all
studies, we did not consider ethnic background in the present
research.
Measures.
Attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale(ECR: Brennan et al., 1998) was used to measure adult romantic
attachment. This scale measures two attachment dimensions with
18 items each regarding Avoidance (i.e., discomfort with closenessand discomfort depending on others) and Anxiety (i.e., fear of
rejection and abandonment). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in thisstudy for the avoidant and anxious subscales were both .87.
Couple relationship need satisfaction. The Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, &Deci, 2000) measures perceived need satisfaction experienced ingeneral within the couple relationship. There are three items eachfor autonomy, competence, and relatedness, with total need satisfaction computed as the average of the nine items. Participants
rated on a 7-point Likert scale how well their basic needs weregenerally met when they were with their romantic partner. Sample
items are “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 competentperson” (competence), and “When I am with my partner, I feel
loved and cared about” (relatedness). Cronbach’s alpha coefficientfor the total scale was .86 in this study.
Psychological symptoms. The short scale of the Symptom
Checklist (SCL-10R: Rosen et al., 2000) was used to assess
psychological symptoms. This scale is composed of 10 items
responded to on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ not at all, 5 ⫽extremely), and the scale assesses various psychological symptoms
including depression, anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility,
phobic avoidance, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, somatization,
psychoticism, and paranoia. This short scale correlates at .95 withthe full 90-item original scale (Rosen et al., 2000). Participants
were asked to rate the extent to which they had been bothered byeach symptom during the last 2 months. A sample item is “to feel
hopeless about future.” A high score on this scale indicates highlevels of psychological symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha coefficientfor the scale was .85 in this study.
Perceived relationship quality. Couple relationship quality
was assessed with the Perceived Relationship Quality Components

167

Inventory (PRQC: Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000b). Thismeasure assesses six components of romantic relationships (satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love) with three
items each. In addition, a romance subscale was also measured
with three items in line with Fletcher, Simpson, and Thomas’(2000a) further expansion of the PRQC. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .79 to .97 for each of the seven subscales.
Couple-related episodic memory. Participants were asked todescribe a specific, significant personal memory of an experiencethat they had within their current couple relationship. They were
instructed to select a memory that reveals something about how
they perceive themselves within the romantic domain and that
often comes to their mind (and thus has a high probability of being
frequently activated). They were asked to provide sufficient details
in the description of their memory so that another person could
understand it. Instructions were drawn from Philippe, Koestner,
Beaulieu-Pelletier, and Lecours, (2011), which were initially derived from self-defining memory instructions (Singer & Salovey,1993) and adapted for the purpose of the present research. These
instructions are similar to those used in past work on couplerelated memories (Alea & Vick, 2010; Sutin & Robins, 2005).
Need satisfaction in the couple-related episodic memory.
Next, participants were asked to rate the level of psychologicalneed satisfaction they experienced when this event/experienceoccurred: “Think back to how you experienced the event or moment you described above when it occurred and respond to each of
the following statements. Respond according to the scale provided
below.” Ratings for each item were made on a 7-point Likert scaleranging from ⫺3 (strongly disagree) to ⫹3 (strongly agree), with
0 representing “Do not agree nor disagree or not applicable”—
this latter option indicating that there was an equal level of bothneed satisfaction and need thwarting in the event or that the event
was not characterized by either need thwarting nor need satisfaction. Participants were provided with two items assessing each of
the three psychological needs postulated by self-determination
theory (Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours, 2011).
A sample item for autonomy was “I felt free to do things and to
think how I wanted,” a sample item for competence was “I felt
competent or capable,” and a sample item for relatedness was “I
felt connected to one or more people.” One item measuring autonomy did not correlate well with the other items and was thus
deleted. An index assessing need satisfaction in the couple-related
episodic memory was also computed by averaging all item scores.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this index was .77. Past research(Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours, 2011, Study 1)
showed a large correlation (r ⫽ .70) between need satisfaction inmemory descriptions as rated by the participants themselves and ascoded by independent judges.
Procedure. Participants were contacted through their university e-mail and informed that we were conducting a study on
romantic relationships. The incentive to participate, used for all
studies reported in the present article, was a drawing for one ofthree prizes of $125. Those who agreed to complete the questionnaire logged into a secure website and expressed their agreementwith the terms of an informed consent by clicking a specificbutton. Finally, it is important to note that participants completed
all measures before describing their couple-related memory. Thisorder was deemed important in order to ensure that the recall of thememory did not influence the ratings on the other scales. Although

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

168

it is possible that completing the relationship scales presented
above might have primed certain memories, this effect should becancelled out by controlling for couple relationship need satisfaction when examining the relationship between need satisfaction incouple-related memories and relationship quality.

Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlational results of all study variables. Satisfaction of autonomy,competence, and relatedness needs in the couple-related memory
were all positively associated with each other and with relationshipquality. Need satisfaction in the couple-related memory was also
weakly negatively associated with attachment avoidance and anxiety and marginally negatively associated with psychologicalsymptoms. There was also a significant but small association
between need satisfaction in the couple-related memory and general perceptions of need satisfaction within one’s couple relationship, thus highlighting the distinction between these constructs.
A structural equation model was used to test the hypothesis thatneed satisfaction in the couple-related memory would be positively
associated with relationship quality, even after controlling for
attachment, couple relationship need satisfaction, and psychological symptoms. Age, gender, and duration of the relationship werealso controlled for in the model. Random item parceling was used
for attachment avoidance and anxiety, couple relationship needsatisfaction, psychological symptoms, and relationship quality inorder to obtain more stable estimations—that is, observed index
variables composed of four or five items for the attachment subscales and of two or three items for the other measures werecreated for each latent construct (see Bandalos, 2002). The estimation method was Maximum Likelihood. Figure 1 shows the
final model. Fit indices for this model were adequate, ␹2(291, N ⫽198) ⫽ 493.88, p ⬍ .001, normed chi-square (NC) ⫽ 1.70,
non-normed fit index (NNFI) ⫽ .96, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽.96, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .060[.050; .068], standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) ⫽.063. Results revealed that as expected, need satisfaction in acouple-related memory was positively associated with relationshipquality after controlling for attachment, couple relationship needsatisfaction, psychological symptoms, age, gender, and relationship duration. Couple relationship need satisfaction and attachment
avoidance, respectively, were also positive and negatively associ-ated with relationship quality. We also examined whether gender
was a moderator of need satisfaction in memory on relationshipquality. The interaction term was not significant (p ⫽ .30).
In order to examine if relatedness accounted for the largest
association with relationship quality, a model was tested in which
relatedness formed a single latent variable and autonomy andcompetence formed another. Results revealed that both autonomy–competence and relatedness were significantly associated withrelationship quality (␥ ⫽ .30, p ⬍ .01, and ␥ ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01,
respectively). This result underscores that not only relatedness
contributes to the quality of couple relationships, but also autonomy and competence. Overall, the present results suggest that needsatisfaction in an episodic memory related to one’s current romantic relationship is associated with relationship quality and that thisassociation is not explained by attachment, need satisfaction generally perceived in one’s couple relationship, or psychologicalsymptoms. These findings provide evidence for the distinction
between the constructs of episodic memories and generic selfknowledge measures of relationships.

Study 2An alternative explanation for the results of Study 1 is that needsatisfaction in any kind of episodic memory could be associatedwith any kind of relational outcomes. Conversely, it is proposedthat memories are context-dependent (Philippe, Koestner, Lecours,
et al., 2011; Philippe, Lecours, & Beaulieu-Pelletier, 2009; Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2009). Episodic memories are expected to
guide people’s attitudes and behavior when people find themselvesin contexts that trigger some of their memories, based on theshared characteristics between the external environment and thememories (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2009). As such, memories
corresponding to a context (e.g., romantic relationship) are more
likely to be activated by context-related cues, such as at home with
one’s partner, and are therefore more likely to exert their effectwithin these partner-related contexts and affect partner-relatedconsequences only. Conversely, memories related to one’s work,
for instance, are more likely to be activated by the perception ofcolleagues, work environment, or supervisors, rather than by one’s
partner, and thus exert their effect in work contexts and affectwork-related (but not partner-related) consequences. For thesereasons, an episodic memory should mostly be associated withconsequences related to its context and not with consequences

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Study 1
Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. Couple-related memory NS
2. Autonomy
3. Competence
4. Relatedness
5. Relationship quality
6. Couple relationship NS
7. Attachment anxiety
8. Attachment avoidance
9. Psychological symptoms

1.69
1.92
1.51
1.74
5.67
6.10
3.08
2.21
2.09

1.21
1.52
1.53
1.47
0.87
0.82
1.08
0.89
0.73

—
.70ⴱⴱ
.86ⴱⴱ
.81ⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱ
.19ⴱⴱ
⫺.14ⴱ
⫺.21ⴱⴱ
⫺.11

—
.54ⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱ
.17ⴱ
.09
⫺.06
⫺.07
.00

—
.45ⴱⴱ
.29ⴱⴱ
.21ⴱⴱ
⫺.01
⫺.21ⴱⴱ
⫺.15ⴱ

—
.27ⴱⴱ
.13
⫺.16ⴱ
⫺.17ⴱ
⫺.07

—
.67ⴱⴱ
⫺.17ⴱ
⫺.45ⴱⴱ
⫺.21ⴱⴱ

—⫺.36ⴱⴱ
⫺.52ⴱⴱ
⫺.39ⴱⴱ

—
.22ⴱⴱ
.57ⴱⴱ

—
.28ⴱⴱ

—

Note. n ⫽ 198. NS ⫽ need satisfaction.
ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

169

Figure 1. Structural equation model of the association between need satisfaction in a couple-related episodic
memory and relationship quality, controlling for attachment, couple relationship need satisfaction, psychologicalsymptoms, age, gender, and relationship duration. Covariances among the latent variables are not shown for thesake of clarity. Psych Sym ⫽ psychological symptoms. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

related to another context. Traits and schemas, however, are believed to have a broader effect on attitudes and behavior acrosscontexts (e.g., Paunonen, 2003).
Study 2 specifically investigated this issue. All participants
completed an attachment questionnaire and described a memory

related to their partner and a memory related to their best friend.
We expected that need satisfaction in the couple-related memory
would be associated with romantic relationship quality but be
unrelated to best-friend relationship quality. Conversely, need satisfaction in the best friend-related memory was expected to be

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

170

they had never experienced any feelings of romantic love and viceversa. Participants were then asked to type in the initials of thisfriend and to indicate how long they had known this friend. A
Principal Components Analysis on the present study data revealed
that all six items assessing friendship quality loaded on one single
dimension, accounting for 69.06% of the variance. All six items
had high factor loadings on this dimension (from .75 to .96).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .90.
Couple-related and friend-related episodic memories. Instructions and procedures for the main couple-related memory description were the same as those presented in Study 1. Participants werealso asked to describe a specific and significant past event experienced with the friend they had identified in the friendship quality
questionnaire that often comes to their mind. Participants rated
each of their memories for their need satisfaction as in the previous
study.

associated with friendship quality but be unrelated to romantic
relationship quality. We also expected that need satisfaction incouple-related memories would only be weakly to moderately
correlated with need satisfaction in friend-related memories, since
contextually different memories should not show a strong overlap(Philippe et al., 2012, Study 1). We also expected that attachment
would be associated with the quality of both the romantic and thefriendship relationships.

MethodParticipants and procedures. Participants were 137 undergraduate and graduate students (111 female, 26 male) involved ina romantic relationship that had been on-going for at least 3
months. Mean age was 25.28 years (SD ⫽ 6.59 years). They
completed attachment, friendship quality, and romantic relationship quality scales. Next, they described a couple-related memory
and a friend-related memory. The order of the description of thememories was counterbalanced across participants.
Measures.
Attachment. The ECR-S (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007) is a short 12-item version of the Experiences in Close
Relationships scale (ECR: Brennan et al., 1998), and that scale wasused to measure the two adult romantic attachment dimensions,each with six items. Evidence of validity and reliability highly
similar to the original full scale has been reported for this shortscale (Wei et al., 2007). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in this study
were .75 and .66 for the anxious and avoidant subscales, respectively.
Romantic relationship quality. Only the best item determinedby Fletcher and colleagues (2000b) of each of the seven subscalesof the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory wasused in this study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .78 in thisstudy.
Friendship quality. Five items from the Inventory of Parent
and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) were used tomeasure friendship quality (e.g., “My friend respects my feelings”). These items were selected because of their high factor
loadings in the factorial analysis presented by Armsden and Greenberg (1987) and because they were suitable to measure friendship
quality in adulthood. One item was also devised for the purpose of
the study in order to directly tap friendship closeness: “I feel close
to my friend.” Participants were asked to nominate a current close(best) friend with whom they had a significant friendship. In orderto prevent overlap between friendship and romantic relationships,
participants were also instructed to select a friend toward whom

Results and Discussion
Correlational results (see Table 2) revealed that need satisfaction in the couple and friend-related main memory were uncorrelated (r ⫽ .14, ns). This result underscores the high degree ofvariability in need satisfaction for relational memories in the same
person.
A structural equation model was conducted with romantic relationship quality and friendship quality as the dependent variables.
The covariance between these two variables was freely estimated.
Independent variables were the two types of attachment, age,gender, need satisfaction in the memory related to one’s romantic
relationship, and need satisfaction in the memory related to one’s
best friend. Results revealed fairly adequate fit indices for thismodel, given the small sample size, ␹2(226, N ⫽ 137) ⫽ 355.94,
p ⬍ .001, NC ⫽ 1.57, NNFI ⫽ .88, CFI ⫽ .91, RMSEA ⫽ .065[.052; .078], SRMR ⫽ .079. In addition, all factor loadings werehigh and significant. Figure 2 presents this model. As expected,
need satisfaction in the romantic relationship memory was positively associated with couple relationship quality but unrelated tofriendship quality. Conversely, need satisfaction in the friendrelated memory was positively associated with friendship quality
but unrelated to couple relationship quality. Attachment avoidance
was negatively associated with both couple relationship andfriendship quality. This result underscores the idea that schemas,
such as attachment, apply generally to people’s interpersonal relationships. Memories, however, are much more contextdependent and only affect outcomes related to the context of thememory. Although one should be cautious about null results, weTable 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Study 2
Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Couple-related memory NS
2. Friend-related memory NS
3. Attachment anxiety
4. Attachment avoidance
5. Relationship quality
6. Friendship quality

1.88
1.99
3.14
2.21
5.60
5.64

1.13
1.04
1.11
0.84
0.94
1.03

—
.14
⫺.15
⫺.19ⴱ
.35ⴱⴱ
.09

—
.03
.09
⫺.03
.17ⴱ

—
.15
⫺.23ⴱⴱ
⫺.01—⫺.49ⴱⴱ
⫺.29ⴱⴱ

—.15—

Note. n ⫽ 137. NS ⫽ need satisfaction.
ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

171

Figure 2. Structural equation model of the association among need satisfaction in a couple-related and in afriend-related episodic memory, relationship quality, and friendship quality. Covariances among the latent
exogenous variables are not shown for the sake of clarity. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

believe it can be confidently concluded that memories related to
one context appear to be more strongly associated with contextrelated outcomes than with unrelated ones. Gender was not asignificant moderator in this study (all ps ⬎ .24).

Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 showed that need satisfaction in a couple-related
memory was associated with relationship quality, as perceived by
the rememberer. Based on past research (Philippe et al., 2012), we
explain this association by the fact that such memories are frequently triggered within people’s romantic lives and influence
their attitudes and behavior when interacting with their partner. If
this is the case, then these memories should be associated not onlywith the rememberer’s perceptions of relationship quality but alsowith those of his or her partner. The triggering of need satisfying
memories within a couple relationship should lead the rememberer
to act in a more open and warm manner with his or her partner,

which should impact this rememberer’s perceived relationshipquality. Likewise, the rememberer’s positive interactions with thepartner should lead this partner to perceive higher relationshipquality. Therefore, a need satisfying couple-related memory recalled by one partner should be uniquely associated with bothpartners’ perceived relationship quality. The purpose of Study 3
was specifically designed to investigate whether a couple-related
memory recalled by one member of a couple would be uniquely
associated with the perceptions of relationship quality of both
members of the couple. In addition, this directive function of
episodic memories on relationship quality should not be fully
explained by each partner’s perceived need satisfaction within
their couple relationship in general.

MethodParticipants, measures, and procedures. A total of 73 undergraduate and graduate students (50 female, 23 male) and their

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

172

heterosexual partner took part in this study (total n ⫽ 146 for 73
dyads). In this study, the term “participant” refers to the person
who initially took part in the study and the term “partner” refers to
the romantic partner of this participant who was subsequently
invited to take part in the study by the participant. Participants’ age
was M ⫽ 25.25 (SD ⫽ 6.16), while partners’ age was M ⫽ 26.75(SD ⫽ 8.55). The participants and their partners were instructed torespond to the online questionnaire without the presence of theirpartner and according to their own perception of their romantic
relationship, not as a function of how they thought their partner
perceived their relationship or whether their partner would agreewith their perception. In order to facilitate honest responses andreduce apprehension, the participants and their partners were toldthat they would not have access to each other’s responses. Both theparticipants and their partners completed the seven items of thePerceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (PRQC:
Fletcher et al., 2000b; ␣s ⫽ .85 and .77) and the Basic Need
Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (␣s ⫽ .84 and .90). After ratingthese scales, the participants— but not their partners— described acouple-related episodic memory and rated their need satisfaction
for this memory. Since we were specifically interested in the effectof the rememberer’s memory on his or her partner’s perceived
relationship quality, we asked the participants, but not their partners, to describe a couple-related memory.

Results
Correlational results showed that relationship quality as perceived by the participants and their partners were correlated at r ⫽.51, p ⬍ .001. Need satisfaction in the memory was correlated at
rs ⫽ .51 and .42, p ⬍ .001, with the participants’ and the partners’
perceived relationship quality, respectively (see Table 3 for all
correlations and means). A dyadic path analysis was conductedaccording to the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM:
Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). More specifically, the participants’need satisfaction in the couple-related memory and both the participants’ and the partners’ ratings of couple relationship needsatisfaction in general were included as exogenous variables. Only
the participants’ age and gender were included as controlled variables, since all dyads were heterosexual couples and the age of themembers of a dyad were correlated at r ⫽ .86. The participants’and the partners’ relationship quality scores served as the dependent variables, and a covariance was drawn between these twoscores to account for their nonindependence. Such a just-identified
model yields perfect fit indices. Figure 3 presents the parameter
coefficients of this model. As can be seen, participants’ andpartners’ couple relationship need satisfaction scores were associ-ated with their own relationship quality scores and marginallyassociated with the other partner’s relationship quality scores (␥ ⫽.17, p ⬍ .10, and ␥ ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .20). These results, althoughmarginal, replicate those of La Guardia et al. (2000), whichshowed that perceiving that one’s partner satisfies one’s needs
influences one’s perceived relationship quality but also influences
one’s partner’s perceived relationship quality. More importantly
for the present investigation, need satisfaction in a couple-related
memory predicted both the participants’ and their partners’ relationship quality, over and above need satisfaction generally perceived in the couple relationship. Surprisingly, need satisfaction in
specific couple-related memories better predicted partners’ judgments of relationship quality than did more general ratings of needsatisfaction in the relationship as a whole. Gender was not asignificant moderator of need satisfaction in the couple-related
memory in predicting either the participants’ or their partners’
perceived relationship quality (ps ⫽ .46 and .14, respectively).
These results show that need satisfaction in a couple-related
memory is associated with both the rememberer’s perceived relationship quality and his or her partner’s perceived relationshipquality. In addition, this effect seems to be specific to the episodic
memory measured and not fully explained by the need satisfaction
generally perceived by both partners in their relationship. This
study also addresses the limitation of the common measurement
methods (self-report) used in Studies 1 and 2. In this study, needsatisfaction in an important couple-related memory, as rated by theparticipants, was associated with their partners’ ratings of relationship quality.

Study 4
Studies 1 to 3 served to establish the discriminant validity of theconstruct of need satisfaction in couple-related memories and its
predictive validity with respect to relationship quality. However, thedirection of the association between memories and relationship quality has not been directly addressed. Indeed, in line with the self
function of memories, the quality of one’s romantic relationshipshould taint the quality of the memories recalled through a reconstructive process (Wilson & Ross, 2003), such that people with highperceived relationship quality may recall more positive, need satisfying memories (Relationship quality ¡ Memory need satisfaction).
Conversely, the directive function of memories predicts that couplerelated memories have an active force on romantic outcomes, whichshould build enduring relational resources over time (Memory needsatisfaction ¡ Relationship quality). The direction of the statistical
relationship each function predicts is thus opposite. A point of concern
when the self and the directive functions are pitted against each other

Table 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Study 3
Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1. Participants’ couple-related memory NS
2. Participants’ couple relationship NS
3. Partners’ couple relationship NS
4. Participants’ relationship quality
5. Partners’ relationship quality

1.50
6.15
5.94
5.87
5.84

1.42
0.66
0.94
0.83
0.73

—
.38ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱ
.51ⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱ

—
.40ⴱⴱ
.68ⴱ
.47ⴱ

—
.40ⴱⴱ
.66ⴱ

—
.51ⴱⴱ

—

Note. n ⫽ 73. NS ⫽ need satisfaction.
ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

173

Figure 3. Dyadic path analysis of the participants’ need satisfaction in a couple-related episodic memory andthe participants’ and their partner’s couple relationship need satisfaction predicting the participants’ and theirpartners’ perceptions of relationship quality. Covariances among the exogenous variables are not shown for thesake of clarity. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

is that if a memory is reconstructed over time, how would it bepossible for the same memory to build relational resources over timein a stable fashion if it constantly changes? We argue that only aportion of a memory is reconstructed over time, whereas anotherportion remains stable. This stable portion should prospectively predict changes in the romantic relationship, and this should occur
regardless of the nature of the reconstructive process operating on thismemory over time.
To examine these issues we conducted a 1-year prospective
study. At Time 1, participants described a couple-related memory
and rated the perceived quality of their romantic relationship. At
Time 2, we asked the participants whether they were still with theirpartner and, if so, to rate their relationship quality again. We also
asked participants at Time 2 to describe a couple-related memory
again. They could describe either the same memory they had
described 1 year ago or a new one if this new memory now seemed
more significant to them. Finally, we presented the participants
with the memory description they wrote 1 year ago and asked themto rate again their level of need satisfaction for this memory.
Our first hypothesis, in line with the directive function of memories, is that the need satisfaction ratings for the same memory at Times
1 and 2 should remain fairly stable over time (high correlation) for
both the participants who separated and those who remained with
their partner. However, in line with the self function of memories, thisrating should also show evidence of reconstruction. That is, participants who remained with their partner over the year should reconstruct this memory as being characterized by higher levels of needsatisfaction than what they originally reported 1 year earlier. Conversely, participants who separated during the year should reconstructtheir memory as being characterized by lower levels of need satisfac-

tion than what they initially reported when they were still in therelationship. As such, participants should use other life events(strengthening or dissolution of their romantic relationship) to reconstruct their couple-related memory. Nevertheless, a portion of thismemory should remain stable over time.
Our second hypothesis concerns the participants who remainedwith the same partner over the year. In line with the directivefunction of memories, we expected that need satisfaction in the
couple-related memory would predict increases in perceived relationship quality over the year. However, in line with the self
function of memories, which suggests that people partly encodeand reconstruct memories as a function of who they are (e.g.,
Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Wilson & Ross, 2003), we also
expected that perceived relationship quality at Time 1 would
predict the recall at Time 2 of a new memory characterized byhigher levels of need satisfaction than the one recalled at Time 1.
Taken together, these findings would suggest that memories andoutcomes are involved in constant bidirectional influences underboth the directive and self functions.
Finally, our third hypothesis concerns the participants who
ended their relationship during the year. In line with the directivefunction of memory, we expected that need satisfaction in the
couple-related memory described at Time 1 would negatively
predict relationship dissolution over the year.

MethodParticipants. A total of 196 undergraduate and graduate students (162 female, 34 male) took part in this study. Participants’age was M ⫽ 24.61 years (SD ⫽ 5.29 years), and they had been

174

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

with their partner for 36.32 months on average (SD ⫽ 34.72
months). At Time 2, 1 year later, 25% of the participants reported
having separated from their partner during the year.
Measures and procedures. At Time 1, participants completed the attachment subscales (Wei et al., 2007; avoidance: ␣ ⫽.70; anxiety: ␣ ⫽ .72), the Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (La Guardia et al., 2000; ␣ ⫽ .88), and the seven-item
Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (Fletcher etal., 2000b; ␣ ⫽ .84). They also described a couple-related episodic
memory and rated their need satisfaction for this memory. At Time2, participants were asked whether they were still with their partner
and, if so, to rate their perceived relationship quality again (␣ ⫽.80). They were also invited to describe a memory related to their(current or past) romantic relationship— either the same memory
they had described 1 year ago or a new one if this new memory
now seemed more significant. They rated it for need satisfaction.
Finally, they were presented with the memory description theywrote 1 year ago (that is, at Time 1) and asked to rate the level ofneed satisfaction they recalled having felt during the event of thisold memory.

Results
Preliminary analyses. Memory descriptions at Times 1 and 2
were coded to determine if the new memory described at Time 2
was the same as the one described at Time 1 or if it was a different
one. Overall, only one participant described the same memory.
This memory was about a traumatic event that had severely handicapped her partner. All other participants described a different
memory. Given these results, we also coded memory descriptions
at Times 1 and 2 for themes (e.g., conflict, travel, party, sex). Veryfew participants (5%) reported memories with a common theme.
Furthermore, the correlation between the need satisfaction in thememory described at Time 1 and the new one described at Time 2
was only r ⫽ .21 for those who remained together and r ⫽ .28 for
those who separated from their partner. These results suggest thata couple-related memory that has been important for a time may bereplaced by another more important memory in a time span as
short as 1 year. In addition, the new memory described seems toshare very little in common with the Time 1 memory in terms of
its level of need satisfaction, as underscored by the weak correlation found between their ratings of need satisfaction.
Main analyses. Our first hypothesis stated that the need satisfaction ratings made at Times 1 and 2 regarding the Time 1
memory description should remain fairly stable over time. When
all participants were included in the analysis, the correlation between ratings at Times 1 and 2 was r ⫽ .70, p ⬍ .001 (thecorrelation was .81 with latent variables and a covariance freely
estimated between the measurement errors of each need). As
expected, this correlation was not different between those who had
separated (r ⫽ .70) and those who remained with the same partner
over the year (r ⫽ .67).2 Thus, about 50% of the variance withrespect to the level of need satisfaction characterizing a couplerelated memory remained stable over a year, regardless of what
happened in the relationship. However, this result also implies thatabout 50% of this variance also changed during this 1 year.
The change in the need satisfaction ratings for the same memory
over the year is likely to have occurred as a function of whether theparticipants had broken up. To examine this potential bias, we

conducted a 2 (relationship status: broken up vs. intact) ⫻ 2 (needratings: Times 1 and 2) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last variable. Results revealed a significant Status ⫻Need Ratings interaction, F(1, 194) ⫽ 10.38, p ⬍ .001, ␩ ⫽ .051.
Simple effects analyses revealed that those who had separated over
the year reported lower need satisfaction in their memory at Time
2 (M ⫽ 0.81, SD ⫽ 1.64) as compared to what they had originallyreported at Time 1 (M ⫽ 1.21, SD ⫽ 1.55), t(48) ⫽ 2.25, p ⬍ .05.
Conversely, participants who remained with their partner over theyear reported higher need satisfaction in their memory at Time 2(M ⫽ 1.94, SD ⫽ 1.25) than at Time 1 (M ⫽ 1.79, SD ⫽ 1.08),t(146) ⫽ 1.95, p ⫽ .053. Gender did not moderate any of theseeffects. Thus, memories showed a substantial stability over timein terms of need satisfaction, and the amount of this stability
was not affected by very important changes in the person’s
romantic life. Although partly stable, need satisfaction in thememory was also colored either by breaking up or not. People
who had separated rated their 1-year old memory lower in needsatisfaction, whereas people who remained with their partner
rated this same memory as even more need satisfying than what
they had indicated at Time 1.
Our second hypothesis was that, in line with the directivefunction, need satisfaction in the memory described at Time 1
should predict increases in perceived relationship quality over theyear. However, in line with the self function, perceived relationship quality at Time 1 should predict increases in need satisfactionin the new memory recalled at Time 2. To investigate thesepredictions, we conducted a cross-lag analysis using structural
equation modeling with need satisfaction in memory and relationship quality measured at Time 1 serving as exogenous variables
and need satisfaction in the new memory described at Time 2 andrelationship quality measured at Time 2 serving as dependent
variables (see Table 4 for correlations and means). In addition, we
also controlled for age, gender, duration of the relationship, attachment, and couple relationship need satisfaction, all measured
at Time 1. This model was applied to those who remained with
their partners over the year.
Results for this model revealed adequate fit indices, ␹2(422,N ⫽ 149) ⫽ 733.50, p ⬍ .001, NC ⫽ 1.67, NNFI ⫽ .92, CFI ⫽.93, RMSEA ⫽ .071 [.062; .080], SRMR ⫽ .076. In addition, allfactor loadings were significant and high. Results (see Figure 4)
revealed that relationship quality at Time 1 was positively associated with relationship quality at Time 2 (␥ ⫽ .75, p ⬍ .01) and thatneed satisfaction in the memory described at Time 1 was marginally and positively associated with need satisfaction in the memory
described at Time 2 (␥ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .10). Furthermore, as expected,
need satisfaction in the memory at Time 1 predicted increases inrelationship quality over the year (␥ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05). In addition,
relationship quality at Time 1 predicted increases over 1 year inneed satisfaction in the new couple-related memory described atTime 2 (␥ ⫽ .63, p ⬍ .01). Effects from all control variables werenonsignificant and gender did not moderate any of the above
relationships. These results show that memories and relationship
2
These correlations remained virtually the same after controlling for
relationship quality (Time 1), thus implying that the initial level of relationship quality did not affect the stability of the level of need satisfactionin the couple-related memory over time.

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

175

Table 4Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Study 4
Variable
1. Couple-related memory
NS T1
2. Relationship quality T1
3. Couple relationship NS
4. Attachment anxiety
5. Attachment avoidance
6. New couple-related
memory NS T2
7. Relationship quality T2a
8. Relationship dissolution(0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes)

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.64

1.24

—

5.69
6.10
3.11
1.99
1.78

0.89
0.80
1.03
0.75
1.59

.34ⴱⴱ
.29ⴱⴱ
⫺.11
⫺.20ⴱⴱ
.22ⴱⴱ

—
.65ⴱⴱ
⫺.25ⴱⴱ
⫺.47ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱ

—⫺.39ⴱⴱ
⫺.44ⴱⴱ
.25ⴱⴱ

—
.17ⴱ
⫺.07

—
⫺.21ⴱⴱ

—

5.95
0.25

0.76
0.43

.36ⴱⴱ
⫺.20ⴱⴱ

.61ⴱⴱ
⫺.26ⴱⴱ

.45ⴱⴱ
⫺.18ⴱ

⫺.08
.14

⫺.35ⴱⴱ
.19ⴱⴱ

.43ⴱⴱ
⫺.31ⴱⴱ

7

8—⫺.61ⴱⴱ

—Note. n ⫽ 196. NS ⫽ need satisfaction; T ⫽ time.
a
The correlations presented for relationship quality at Time 2 only include participants who remained with their partner over the year.
ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

quality are involved in a reciprocal relationship. First, need satisfying memories seem to build relationship quality over time.
Relationship quality, in turn, appears to facilitate the experience/recall of need satisfying events with one’s partner. Finally, theseneed satisfying memories appear to further strengthen relationshipquality.
To examine our final hypothesis, that need satisfaction in thememory described at Time 1 would predict relationship dissolution at Time 2, we conducted a structural equation modelusing all participants (n ⫽ 196). Relationship quality at Time 1

and need satisfaction in the couple-related memory at Time 1
served as independent variables. We also controlled for age,gender, duration of the relationship, attachment, and couple
relationship need satisfaction, all measured at Time 1. A dichotomous variable indicating whether the participants werestill with their initial partner (0) or had separated over the year
(1) served as the dependent variable. Results for this model
revealed adequate fit indices, ␹2(198, N ⫽ 196) ⫽ 376.51, p ⬍.001, NC(␹2/df) ⫽ 1.90, NNFI ⫽ .93, CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽.068 [.058; .078], SRMR ⫽ .065, as well as high factor loadings

Figure 4. Structural equation model among need satisfaction in couple-related episodic memories and relationshipquality over 1 year. Age, gender, relationship duration, couple relationship need satisfaction, and attachment anxiety
and avoidance were also controlled for but are not shown for the sake of clarity and because all their path coefficientsto the dependent variables were nonsignificant (all ps ⬎ .10). T ⫽ time. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

176

for all indicators. A logit coefficient was estimated between all
independent variables and the dichotomous dependent variable.
Results revealed that relationship quality at Time 1 (␥ ⫽ ⫺.43,
p ⬍ .01) and duration of the relationship (␥ ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .01)
were significant predictors of relationship dissolution. Needsatisfaction in the couple-related memory was a marginal predictor of relationship dissolution (␥ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍ .10). All otherpredictors were not significant. Gender did not moderate any ofthese relationships.
We then examined if a dichotomous approach would be more
appropriate for need satisfaction in memories. The reasoning isthat all levels of need satisfaction in the memory (⬎0 to ⫹3 on the
Likert scale) should prevent relationship dissolution, whereas alllevels of need thwarting in the memory (⫺3 to 0) should lead torelationship dissolution (for a similar reasoning and procedure, see
Philippe et al., 2012, Study 3). Therefore, we dichotomized needsatisfaction in the couple-related memory, with zero and below
indicating a need thwarting memory (⫺3 to 0) and above zero
indicating a need satisfying memory (⬎0 to ⫹3). We replaced thecontinuous variable in the above model with this new dichotomous
variable (0 ⫽ need thwarting; 1 ⫽ need satisfying). Results revealed better support for our hypothesis. Relationship quality andduration of the relationship were still significant and virtuallyunchanged, but need satisfaction in memory became a significant
predictor of relationship dissolution (␥ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05).
Overall, the findings of Study 4 imply that memories can serveboth a self and a directive function at the same time. Experiential
components of memories appear to affect people’s attitudes andbehaviors within their romantic relationship to the point of influencing relationship status (strengthening or dissolution of therelationship). Concomitantly, people’s memories seem to be reconstructed to assimilate these changes in the status of theirrelationship in order to better reflect their current self and self witha (past) significant other.

ity (␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬍ .05). This relationship was stronger for maleparticipants (␤ ⫽ .39, t ⫽ 3.60, p ⬍ .01) than for female participants (␤ ⫽ .13, t ⫽ 2.38, p ⬍ .05). Finally, participants’ age
moderated the relationship between the relatedness need in the
couple-related memory and relationship quality (␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬍.05). This association was stronger for younger (⫺1 SD; ␤ ⫽ .26,t ⫽ 4.37, p ⬍ .01) than for older (⫹1 SD) participants (␤ ⫽ .09,t ⫽ 1.75, p ⫽ .08). Thus, overall, the association between needsatisfaction (and each need) in a couple-related memory and relationship quality appears pretty stable for various personal andrelationship characteristics—as expected by self-determination
theory and the universality postulate of these three needs and of
their consequences (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

General Discussion
The directive function of memories has received much lesssupport in the literature than the self or social functions (Pillemer,
2003). The present research sought to reduce this gap by investigating the active force episodic memories can have on romantic
relationship outcomes in emerging adulthood. Drawing from recent research that showed that some episodic memories play acentral role in people’s lives by being frequently activated in
specific contexts and by influencing people’s attitudes and behavior in those contexts (Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, &Lecours, 2011; Philippe et al., 2012; Philippe, Koestner, Lecours,
et al., 2011), the present research showed that significant couplerelated memories were associated with important romantic outcomes, including both partners’ perceptions of relationship quality
and outcomes as important as continuing or terminating a relationship. The present research makes several contributions to thememory and romantic relationship literature and advances knowledge in each of these fields.

Episodic Memories as One Level of Personality
Summary Analyses
To examine the effect of gender, age, relationship length, andeach need separately within a larger and more representative
sample size, we aggregated all data from all four studies. Thislarger sample size was composed of 130 male and 474 female
participants with a mean age of 25.25 years (SD ⫽ 6.21 years) and
who were engaged in a romantic relationship for 3.42 years on
average (SD ⫽ 3.86 years). The correlation between need satisfaction in the couple-related memories and relationship quality
was r ⫽ .35 for this aggregated sample. We conducted several
regressions to examine moderations by gender, age, or relationshiplength. The association between need satisfaction in the couplerelated memories and relationship quality was not moderated byany of these variables (all ps ⬎ .20). We then examined thecontribution of each need separately and whether the effect of aparticular need was moderated by gender, age, or relationshiplength. When entered together in a regression analysis, all threeneeds independently contributed to relationship quality, even after
controlling for gender, age, and relationship length (autonomy ␤ ⫽.10, competence ␤ ⫽ .16, relatedness ␤ ⫽ .16, all ps ⬍ .05). As formoderations, only two interaction terms emerged as significant.
Gender significantly moderated the relationship between the competence need in the couple-related memory and relationship qual-

The present research highlights that episodic memories represent people’s self and personality with a significant other, without
being equivalent to attachment-related schemas. The present set ofstudies controlled for dimensions of attachment and, in each instance, we found that couple-related memories explained variancein romantic relationship quality that was not accounted for byattachment. This finding parallels that of Kuwabara and Pillemer(2010), who found that the deliberate activation of a universityrelated memory led to actual donations to the university, over andabove general attitudes toward the university. Episodic memories
represent a person’s self and self with a significant other in specificinstances (Klein, Cosmides, Tooby, & Chance, 2002). These instances may or may not generalize to generic self-knowledge
structures, such as traits, schemas, or generalized perceptions(Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours, 2011). This
conceptualization echoes those of narrative researchers (Adler,
2012; Lodi-Smith, Geise, Roberts, & Robins, 2009; McAdams,
2001; McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007) who argue that there are
multiple levels to personality and that traits and schemas only
represent one of those levels (McAdams & Pals, 2006). The
present research further showed that even when the same construct
is assessed at different levels, the independence of the levels
remains. Indeed, need satisfaction in memories predicted impor-MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

tant relational outcomes, over and above people’s general perceptions of need satisfaction in their couple relationship. This suggeststhat need satisfaction in couple-related memories is not fully
represented at the same level as people’s perceptions of needsatisfaction within their couple relationship.
The generic self-knowledge level and the episodic level are not
only independent, they also seem to fulfill different roles. Episodic
memories are specific and context-dependent (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2009), whereas traits and schemas apply more generally
across contexts (Paunonen, 2003). Study 2 supported this conclusion. It showed that need satisfaction in a couple-related memory
was associated with romantic relationship quality, but not withfriendship quality. However, need satisfaction in an episodic memory with one’s best friend was related to the quality of thisfriendship, but not with romantic relationship quality. Conversely,
avoidant attachment was found to be negatively associated withboth romantic relationship quality and friendship quality.

On the Association Between Couple-Related Memories
and Relationship Quality
The present research suggests that couple-related episodic memories and their experiential component of need satisfaction are
actively implicated in the quality of romantic relationships ofyoung adults. First, need satisfaction was found to be an important
experiential component of these memories in predicting relationship outcomes. This replicates past research that came to this conclusion with respect to well-being (Philippe, Koestner, BeaulieuPelletier, & Lecours, 2011, 2012) and emotion regulation (Philippe,
Koestner, Lecours, et al., 2011). Study 3 went beyond this simple
association between need satisfaction in memories and relationshipquality by showing that couple-related memories as described by
one partner were associated not only with this partner’s perceptions of relationship quality but also with the other partner’s
perceptions. Recently, Philippe and his colleagues (2012) primed
personal episodic memories outside of people’s awareness andfound an immediate effect on their situational well-being as afunction of the need satisfaction level of the memory primed. We
believe that the same process explains the present findings. People’s couple-related episodic memories are frequently activatedwithin the context of their relationship through partner-related
cues. The activation of these memories should immediately affecttheir attitude and behavior with their partner as a function of thelevel of need satisfaction characterizing the memory activated.
This attitude and behavior should be perceived by the other partnerand should affect his or her perceptions of the quality of therelationship. Although the present findings do not allow us tocorroborate this explanation, we believe that Study 3 provided
important initial evidence regarding this process. Experimental
studies allowing the priming of a couple-related memory andsubsequent observations of partners interacting within laboratory
settings are needed to confirm this conclusion. One limitation of
Study 3 is that we assessed memories as remembered by only oneof the two partners. Future research could ask both partners toremember the same memory or a different memory.
Study 4 provided the first evidence of this active force of thedirective function of couple-related memories on critical relationship outcomes over time. By following participants over 1 year andby using a cross-lag panel, it was possible to reveal the direction

177of this association between need satisfaction in couple-related
memories and relationship outcomes. The findings showed a reciprocal relationship between these variables. Couple-related
memories appear to have an active force on relational outcomesover time, which seems to build or hinder relational resources asimportant as increasing one’s relationship quality or ending one’s
relationship. At the same time, high relationship quality appears tolater help people experience, encode, or recall (or all of them) new
need satisfying couple-related memories. These findings underscore how the self (Relational outcomes ¡ Memories) and the
directive (Memories ¡ Relational outcomes) functions of memories may combine to increase one’s relational resources over time.

Stability and Reconstruction of Need Satisfaction in
Memories
Study 4 also allowed us to examine the stability and the reconstructive process occurring on the experiential component of needsatisfaction characterizing a memory, when this memory is assessed at two different moments over 1 year. The findings showedthat people reconstructed their memory over time as a function of
their relationship status. Those who remained with their partner
showed an increase in need satisfaction for this memory, whereas
those who broke up rated their need satisfaction lower compared to
1 year before. Parallel to this finding is that, over 1 year, about
50% of the variance of need satisfaction characterizing the couplerelated memory remained stable, even if people had experienced
other important events that changed the meaning of their memory
over this time period. Whether people had separated or not over theyear, and regardless of their initial level of relationship quality,
they showed the same level of stability in the need satisfaction
characterizing their couple-related memory.
These findings support both the self and the directive functionsof memories. On the one hand, people are likely to reconstructtheir relationship memories as a function of the status of thisrelationship—increasing their perceptions of need satisfaction forpast events related to relationships that are maintained and decreasing these perceptions for past events related to relationshipsthat ended. On the other hand, memories are never totally reconstructed (at least over a year). Results showed that despite a partial
reconstruction, a portion of the experiential component of thememory remained stable over time. It was this stable portion that
had a directive force on future romantic outcomes. One alternative
explanation is that people might have tried to guess how muchneed satisfaction there was in their memory description based on
their reading of their memory at Time 2. However, the fact that areconstructive process based on the participants’ current relationship status was additively at play suggests that this alternative
explanation is unlikely. People who had separated or who remained together over the year reported lower and higher needsatisfaction, respectively, than what they had initially reported.
This finding thus implies that participants actually tried to remember their original memory and did not base their ratings solely on
its old description.
Some limitations with respect to the present research need to beunderscored. First, all relational outcomes measured pertained toself-reported outcomes. Although there seems to be little chancethat some of these outcomes do not reflect the actual behavior of
the participants (e.g., reporting having broken up), this research

PHILIPPE, KOESTNER, AND LEKES

178

could be extended by examining whether episodic memories predict the quality of observed partner interactions or other moreobjective behavioral markers. Second, the present findings cannot
be generalized to populations other than undergraduate and graduate students. Perhaps education level is an important factor thatthe present research could not address. Similarly, the present
findings generally apply to the period of emerging adulthood,
where relationships remain relatively unstable, as compared tolong-term marriages. Future research is necessary to replicate thepresent results within a community-dwelling population, whichshould include various age groups, in order to increase the ecological validity of the present findings.
Another limitation is that most participants were female, andmale participants were underrepresented in this research. It appears
that studies on the topic of romantic relationships seem more
appealing to female participants than to male participants. Although the summary analysis section responds to some queries
regarding gender, it is still possible that gender might have playeda larger role in some specific studies if the sample size had been
larger. A final limitation is that the purpose of the present research
was to highlight various roles of the directive function within thesphere of romantic relationships, such as its influence on one’s
perceptions of relationship quality, the context-dependent nature ofcouple-related memories as compared to other relational memories, and their effect on partners’ perceptions of relationship quality and on future relationship outcomes. Although each study
touched on these themes, further research is needed to deepen andexplore more thoroughly each of these important aspects of thedirective function of episodic memories. It is our hope, however,that the present set of studies will prompt more research on theactive and directive function of episodic memories in people’s
lives.

References
Adler, J. M. (2012). Living into the story: Agency and coherence in alongitudinal study of narrative identity development and mental healthover the course of psychotherapy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 367–389. doi:10.1037/a0025289
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptualmodel of the social function of autobiographical memory. Memory, 11,
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, 1091–
1111. doi:10.1002/acp.1316
Alea, N., & Vick, S. C. (2010). The first sight of love: Relationshipdefining memories and marital satisfaction across adulthood. Memory,18, 730 –742. doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.506443
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent andpeer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
16, 427– 454. doi:10.1007/BF02202939
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Bandalos, D. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit andparameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 78 –102. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
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, 25–34. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9045-6

Beike, D. R., Adams, L. P., & Naufel, K. Z. (2010). Closure of autobiographical memories moderates their directive effect on behaviour. Memory, 18, 40 – 48. doi:10.1080/09658210903405729
Bluck, S. (2003). Autobiographical memory: Exploring its functions ineveryday life. Memory, 11, 113–123. doi:10.1080/741938206
Bluck, S., & Alea, N. (2011). Crafting the TALE: Construction of ameasure to assess the functions of autobiographical remembering. Memory, 19, 470 – 486. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.590500
Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A tale of threefunctions: The self-reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social
Cognition, 23, 91–117. doi:10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198
Bluck, S., Dirk, J., Mackay, M. M., & Hux, A. (2008). Life experience withdeath: Relation to death attitudes and to the use of death-related memories. Death Studies, 32, 524 –549. doi:10.1080/07481180802138860
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson &W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.
46 –76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brewer, W. F. (1986). What is autobiographical memory? In D. Rubin(Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 25– 49). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Brittlebank, A. D., Scott, J., Williams, J. M. G., & Ferrier, I. N. (1993).
Autobiographical memory in depression: State or trait marker. The
British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 118 –121. doi:10.1192/bjp.162.1.118
Conway, M. A. (2008). Exploring episodic memory. In E. Dere, A. Easton,
L. Nadel, & J. P. Huston (Eds.), Handbook of episodic memory (Vol. 18,
pp. 19 –29). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S15697339(08)00202-6
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of
autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological
Review, 107, 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
Conway, M., Singer, J., & Tagini, A. (2004). The self and autobiographicalmemory: Correspondence and coherence. Social Cognition, 22, 491–
529. doi:10.1521/soco.22.5.491.50768
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goalpursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., &Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being
in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930 –942. doi:10.1177/
0146167201278002
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000a). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. doi:10.1037/00223514.79.6.933
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000b). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory
factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 340 –354. doi:10.1177/0146167200265007
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious
experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook on selfdetermination research (pp. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University ofRochester Press.
Josephson, B. R., Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Mood regulation andmemory: Repairing sad moods with happy memories. Cognition &Emotion, 10, 437– 444. doi:10.1080/026999396380222
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, 306 –329. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.306

MEMORIES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Kuwabara, K. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (2010). Memories of past episodes
shape current intentions and decisions. Memory, 18, 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 well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. doi:10.1037/00223514.79.3.367
LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Emotion as memory: Anatomical systems underlying
indelible neural traces. In S. A. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of
emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 269 –288). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lodi-Smith, J., Geise, A. C., Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2009).
Narrating personality change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 679 – 689. doi:10.1037/a0014611
McAdams, D. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General
Psychology, 5, 100 –122. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental
principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204 –217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
McLean, K. C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. L. (2007). Selves creating stories
creating selves: A process model of self-development. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262–278. doi:10.1177/
1088868307301034
Pasupathi, M. (2003). Emotion regulation during social remembering:
Differences between emotions elicited during an event and emotions
elicited when talking about it. Memory, 11, 151–163. doi:10.1080/
741938212
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The roleof need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 434 – 457. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434
Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five factors of personality and replicatedpredictions of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 411– 422. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411
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. Journalof Personality, 79, 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, 505–519. doi:
10.1177/0146167211429805
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Lecours, S., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., & Bois, K.
(2011). The role of autobiographical memory networks in the experienceof negative emotions: How our remembered past elicits our current
feelings. Emotion, 11, 1279 –1290. doi:10.1037/a0025848
Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Beaulieu-Pelletier, G. (2009). Resilience andpositive emotions: Examining the role of emotional memories. Journalof Personality, 77, 139 –176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00541.x
Pillemer, D. B. (1998). Momentous events, vivid memories. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Pillemer, D. B. (2001). Momentous events and the life story. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 5, 123–134. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.123
Pillemer, D. B. (2003). Directive functions of autobiographical memory:
The guiding power of the specific episode. Memory, 11, 193–202.
doi:10.1080/741938208
Pillemer, D. B. (2009). Twenty years after Baddeley (1988): Is the study of
autobiographical memory fully functional? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1193–1208. doi:10.1002/acp.1619

179

Pratt, M. W., Arnold, M. L., Norris, J. E., & Filyer, R. (1999). Generativity
and moral development as predictors of value socialization narratives foryoung persons across the adult lifespan: From lessons learned to stories
shared. Psychology and Aging, 14, 414 – 426. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.3.414
Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2009). The possible functions ofinvoluntary autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
23, 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, 419 – 435. doi:
10.1177/0146167200266002
Robinson, J. A. (1986). Autobiographical memory: A historical prologue.
In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 19 –24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511558313.005
Rosen, C. S., Drescher, K. D., Moos, R. H., Finney, J. W., Murphy, R. T.,& Gusman, F. (2000). Six- and ten-item indexes of psychologicaldistress based on the Symptom Checklist–90. Assessment, 7, 103–111.
doi:10.1177/107319110000700201
Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A., & Singer, J. A. (1981). Cardiovasculardifferentiation of happiness, sadness, anger, and fear following imagery
and exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 43, 343–364.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What’s
satisfying about satisfying events? Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
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, 1270 –1279. doi:10.1177/
01461672962212007
Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing:Integrating motive disposition theory and self-determination theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1106 –1123. doi:
10.1037/a0024952
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self: Emotion andmemory in personality. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2005). Continuity and correlates of
emotions and motives in self-defining memories. Journal of Personality,73, 793– 824. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00329.x
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around theworld. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354 –365.
doi:10.1037/a0023779
Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive
emotions, self– other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of new relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 93–106. doi:10.1080/17439760500510569
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The
Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)–Short Form: Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88,
187–204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041
Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D., & Tulving, E. (1997). Toward a theory of
episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 331–354. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.331
Wilson, A., & Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of autobiographicalmemory: Time is on our side. Memory, 11, 137–149. doi:10.1080/
741938210

Received January 31, 2012
Revision received July 12, 2012
Accepted September 10, 2012 䡲