Received: 8 January 2020

Revised: 21 September 2020

Accepted: 27 October 2020

DOI: 10.1111/pere.12360

ARTICLE

Association between attachment insecurity andcouple adjustment: Moderation by couple
memory networks
Alexandre Lejeune |Nabil Bouizegarene |Department of Psychology, University ofQuebec at Montreal, Montreal, Québec,CanadaCorrespondence
Frederick L. Philippe, Department of
Psychology, University of Quebec at
Montreal, PO Box 8888, Station CentreVille, Montreal (Quebec), H3C 3P8,
Canada.
Email: philippe.frederick@uqam.ca
Funding information
Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada, Grant/Award
Number: 435-2017-1358

Frederick L. Philippe

Abstract
This study investigated whether couple-related memories and their organization in memory networks could
act as cognitive resources to protect against the negative impact of insecure attachment on couple adjustment. In two studies (n1 = 153, n2 = 567), participantsin a romantic relationship described a significant
couple-related memory and provided networked memories associated with their couple-related memory, toassess its organization in the memory system, and rated
each memory for its level of need satisfaction. Findings
across the two studies revealed significant moderationsof need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks, such that a higher level of satisfaction needwithin couple-related memory networks was associatedwith a reduced negative association of attachment anxiety and avoidance with couple adjustment. Whenexamined separately, it was shown that need-satisfying
networked memories, but not main couple-related
memories, moderated the negative association of insecure attachment with couple adjustment.
KEYWORDS
attachment, couple adjustment, memory, memory network, needsatisfaction© 2020 International Association for Relationship Research
Pers Relationship. 2021;28:39–60.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere

39

40

LEJEUNE ET AL.

1 | INTRODUCTION
Researchers recognize that close relationships in adulthood are influenced by relationships ininfancy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These first formative relationships will affect our beliefs
and expectations regarding ourselves and others and, depending on their quality, they will
either facilitate or impede the quality of our relationships (Simpson, 1990). Research on attachment and interpersonal relationships have typically shown that secure attachment is linked toadaptive relational outcomes and avoidant and anxious insecure attachment dimensions areassociated with adverse relational outcomes (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005; Mikulincer, Shaver, &Pereg, 2003). Romantic relationships do not depart from this pattern as attachment avoidance
and anxiety have been consistently associated with low couple adjustment (Roisman, Collins,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005). However, there is still little knowledge of the mechanisms that could
counteract the negative association of insecure attachment with couple adjustment. We proposethat the relational memories people keep of a specific relationship, such as a romantic partner,
and their organization in networks, could serve as cognitive resources to protect against thenegative effect of insecure attachment schemas on relationship functioning. The purpose of thepresent study was to examine whether the negative association of insecure attachment withcouple adjustment could be mitigated by key characteristics of couple-related memories1 andthe way these memories are organized in the broader memory system.

2 | THE EFFECTS OF A DULT ATTACHMENT INSECURITYO N C O U PL E A D J U S T M E N T
The literature on adult attachment builds on Bowlby's seminal theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973,1980) and describes the effects and outcomes of adult attachment dimensions (Mikulincer &Shaver, 2007). Research has identified anxiety and avoidance as two distinct insecure attachment dimensions by their respective relation to hyperactivation and deactivation of the attachment behavioral system. Attachment anxiety is characterized by hypervigilance, exaggeration,
rumination about potential separation threats, and excessive seeking of relational support,
whereas attachment avoidance is characterized by the ignorance of potential separation threats
and the inhibition of the need for relational support (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). Both insecure attachment dimensions
have been consistently and independently found to be detrimental to social abilities and relationship quality. For instance, studies have found that individuals with an insecure attachment
are more anxious and hostile than securely attached individuals (Kobak & Sceery, 1988) andmore likely to feel lonely and to be perceived as less socially competent (Hazan &Shaver, 1987). In terms of romantic relationships, a meta-analysis by Li and Chan (2012)
showed that both insecure attachment dimensions were negatively associated with romantic
relationship satisfaction and felt partner support.
Adult attachment studies suggest that it is the sense of felt-security derived from the supportof an attachment figure that leads to beneficial romantic relational outcomes (Collins, 1996;
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). Mikulincer and Shaver (2003) proposed that the process
underlying this effect is that secure individuals will tend to enact comforting mental representations of past relationship partners (romantic or not) who provided comfort and protection. In
contrast, insecure individuals who have limited access to comforting representations have difficulties soothing themselves when confronted with a separation threat and tend instead to relyon secondary strategies to alleviate the perceived lack of support from their partner

LEJEUNE ET AL.

41(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, little research has examined these mental representations per se and their availability and organization. In this research, we propose that episodic
memories might be one source of mental representations from which insecure individuals could
draw in times of stress to buffer the negative effect of their insecure attachment schemas on
their romantic relationship functioning.

3 | THE P RO T E CT I VE FU N CTI O N O F SE C UR I T Y ENHANC ING REPR ES ENTATIONS AND EPISODICMEMOR IES
Shaver, Mikulincer, Lavy, and Cassidy (2009) have found that by priming security-related
semantic representations (i.e., security-enhancing words), the defense mechanisms used byattachment-anxious and attachment-avoidant individuals in dealing with hurt feelings were significantly diminished. Indeed, following such priming, attachment-anxious individuals were
found to express less intense feelings of rejection and hostile reactions to being hurt. Conversely, attachment-avoidant individuals were less inclined to deny their hurt feelings andresponded with less aggression. Overall, priming semantic security-enhancing representation
significantly improved mood, compassion, and altruism (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001;
Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). Therefore, it appears that the activation of
security-enhancing semantic representations could play a role in countering the negative
impacts of insecure attachment.
Another type of representation, episodic representations (i.e., episodic memories), could also
play this role. Episodic memories are event-specific units of personal experience(Conway, 2009).2 They are most often quickly forgotten, but if they are relevant to the self, they
can be maintained over months, years, or a lifetime as a function of the degree to which they
are integrated into the self (Conway, 2005, 2009). Episodic memories can reflect or underlie
values, beliefs, and self-images, thus, providing a sense of continuity and stability to the self
(Conway, 2005). Singer and Salovey (1993) introduced the construct of self-defining memories
to refer to a specific type of episodic memories that are easily and chronically accessible, often
recalled or activated, emotionally intense, self-relevant, and central to one's identity. Selfdefining memories are thought to help define and maintain long-term goals relevant to the self
(e.g., a caring romantic relationship). Furthermore, this structural effect of memory typicallyoccurs in a domain-specific manner (Bouizegarene & Philippe, 2016; Conway, Singer, &Tagini, 2004). That is, self-defining memories often come to represent the domain in which they
were experienced and influence the person's thoughts, behaviors, and emotions in that domain.
For instance, the memory of an exalting first date can be elected to represent a specific romantic
relationship and since that memory is positive, it will positively influence the person's thoughts,
behaviors, and emotions with the partner of that romantic relationship. As such, a positive
domain-specific self-defining memory could act as a psychological resource in the domain
within which the event of the memory occurred.
Research by Philippe, Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, and Lecours (2011); Philippe, Koestner,
Beaulieu-Pelletier, Lecours, and Lekes (2012) has established that a core experiential component encoded with memories are remembered levels of three basic psychological needs as
defined by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017): autonomy (the need for taking on
initiatives, and experiencing freedom and volition), relatedness (the need for true connection
and closeness), and competence (the need to feel efficacious and capable). The satisfaction ofthese three basic needs characterizing the event of a memory (see Method section for

42

LEJEUNE ET AL.

illustrative examples) was found to be associated with and to predict changes in well-being indices over time, more than the valence of the memory (i.e., whether the memory is positive or
negative) (Philippe et al., 2011, 2012). Indeed, even though valence and need satisfaction havebeen found to be correlated, sometimes valence and need satisfaction can be opposite. For
instance, the memory of a negative event can be characterized by the satisfaction of autonomy
and competence (e.g., aptly expressing one's limits in an interpersonal conflict) or by the satisfaction of relatedness (e.g., being comforted after a major failure). In sum, it appears that needsatisfaction can be seen as a robust indicator of the degree to which a domain-specific selfdefining memory will beneficially impact that domain.
Finally, memories do not exist in isolation. They associate with other memories throughcontiguity of different elements, such as similar events (Brown & Schopflocher, 1998), emotions(Demblon, Bahri, & D'Argembeau, 2016), and themes (Kemp, Burt, & Malinen, 2009), thereby
forming memory networks. Consequently, when a memory is activated by an environmental
trigger or is deliberately recalled, it will also activate other associated networked memories.
Such a memory network can therefore have a buffering effect for some memories that are partof that network.3 If a need-thwarting memory is part of an overall need-satisfying network,
these need-satisfying networked memories should reduce the negative impact of the mainneed-thwarting memory. Conversely, a need-satisfying memory part of a network with otherneed-thwarting networked memories will result in an attenuation of the positive impact of themain need-satisfying memory (e.g., Philippe & Houle, 2020). Thus, in certain cases, the effect of
the networked memories can surpass the one of the main memory (e.g., Philippe, Dobbin,Ross, & Houle, 2018; Philippe & Houle, 2020), although both typically contribute independently
to outcomes (e.g., Demblon et al., 2016; Philippe et al., 2012).
Overall, need-thwarting memory networks (i.e., both a main and networked memories) will
trigger self-defensive processes due to the potential threat to the self they communicate(Hodgins & Knee, 2002; Philippe et al., 2012). In contrast, need-satisfying memory networks
will facilitate openness and approach behaviors (Houle, Philippe, Lecours, & Roulez, 2018;
Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017). Like security-enhancing semantic representations, weposit that because they are frequently activated and chronically accessible, couple-related needsatisfying memory networks could be used to buffer the negative association between insecureattachment and couple adjustment.

4 | THE P RESENT RESEARCH
Few studies have looked at attachment and couple-related episodic memories. Sutin and
Gillath (2009) showed that attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with more negative and less coherent self-defining couple-related memories. Philippe, Koestner, and Lekes (2013)
reported correlations showing that both attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively correlated with need satisfaction in a self-defining couple-related memory. Thus, insecure individuals should report a lower level of need satisfaction in their couple-related memory networks.
However, this should not be the case for all insecure individuals. First, attachment schemas andepisodic and autobiographical memories are two independent cognitive repertoires that nourishes each other, but that nevertheless remain independent of each other. Thus, many adults
who report an insecure attachment can nevertheless have more or less need satisfying couplerelated memories. A correlation between these two repertoires does not imply a perfect overlap.
Second, research has shown that insecurely attached individuals are constantly affected bytheir partners' buffering behavior (Simpson & Overall, 2014). When experiencing stressful or

LEJEUNE ET AL.

43

threatening events, the partners of insecurely attached individuals can sometimes engage inactions that reduce this distress, console, or respond in novel and compassionate ways thatcounteract the insecurely attached person's expected schema. These partners' actions can be
encoded in memories as life events that stand out of expected scripts. Because of the diverging
information they provide, they do not immediately change the more abstract and stable attachment schema (Williams, Conway, & Cohen, 2008). However, these memories can remain accessible and become self-defining of the romantic relationship as episodic and autobiographicalmemories and can be retrieved later on to be used as a buffering cognitive resource. Finally,
these sorts of memories can be accumulated over time to form larger memory networks or they
can associate with other memories of other relationships exemplifying other need-satisfying
moments or actions, which by their association with the main memory adds to the felt-security
and need satisfaction provided by the main memory.
Such couple self-defining memories and their associated networked memories are chronically accessible and accessed (Singer & Salovey, 1993). They can be deliberately recalled or activated by external cues (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). These cues can be any stimulus like asurface feature common to the self-defining memory (same object, same location, same person,
same emotion) or a common theme (making decision, sexuality, cooking), or a combination ofa surface feature and a theme (e.g., when my partner is cooking, when my partner criticizesme). Given the frequent activation of these memories in people's lives, they frequently exert
their effect, which over time, can cumulate in enduring changes in couple adjustment, such asincreases in relationship quality or breakup, depending on the level of need satisfaction of thesememories and of their networks (Philippe et al., 2013). As such, these need-satisfying couplerelated memories and networked memories might serve as chronically accessible mental
resources to buffer the effect of insecure attachment on relationship functioning.

5 | S T UDY 1
We expected that a self-defining need-satisfying memory related to one's romantic relationship,
along with its related need-satisfying networked memories, should positively impact the attitude and behavior of people within their romantic relationship and as a result be related to abetter couple adjustment. However, because of their insecure attachment, anxious and avoidant
individuals should have a low level of need satisfaction characterizing their couple-related
memory networks and should have lower couple adjustment. Therefore, we hypothesized thatboth attachment anxiety and avoidance should be negatively associated with need satisfaction
in couple-related memory networks and with couple adjustment, whereas need satisfaction incouple-related memory networks should be positively associated with couple adjustment.
In addition, insecure individuals who have access to need-satisfying couple-related memory
networks should benefit from this condition and report greater couple adjustment. Therefore,
we also hypothesized that the relation between both insecure attachment dimensions and couple adjustment would be moderated by need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks,
such that high levels of need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks should lower thenegative association between insecure attachment and couple adjustment toward non-significance. Conversely, low levels of need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks should
increase the existing negative association between insecure attachment and couple adjustment.
It was also investigated whether both the main couple-related memory and the networked
memories would moderate this association or if only one of these components would. Since no44

LEJEUNE ET AL.

past research has investigated how components of memory networks moderate associations
between personality-like variables and outcomes, we did not make a priori hypothesis regarding
this issue, but analyzed the results accordingly. Finally, we expected that these associations
would hold even after controlling for demographic variables that were found to be associatedwith couple adjustment in past research, that is, age (Lee & Shehan, 1989), gender (Schumm,
Webb, & Bollman, 1998), and relationship duration (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).

6 | METHOD
6.1 | Participants and procedure
A total of 157 undergraduates and graduates (81% females) who were engaged in a romantic relationship for more than 3 months were recruited from a French-Canadian University. Four participants were excluded because they did not provide a couple-related memory or networked
memories, leaving 153 participants for the analyses. Participants' mean age of the final sample was25.65 years (SD = 6.97). A priori power analysis revealed that to detect medium effect sizes(f2 = .15) within a multiple regression analysis with eight predictors at an α = .05 and a power of.80, a sample of 109 participants was needed. Participants were contacted through their university
emails to inform them that we were conducting an online study on attachment, memory, and relationships. Single participants completed a different questionnaire that will not be analyzed in thepresent study. Partnered participants completed all measures online and described their memories
as the last requirement of the questionnaire. As an incentive, participants were entered into a draw
for one of three prizes of $125 CAD. Both Studies 1 and 2 were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board for human subject studies and each participant gave their informed consent.

6.2 | Measures
6.2.1

|

Attachment

The Experience in Close Relationships Short-form scale (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, &Vogel, 2007) measures the two adult romantic attachment dimensions of attachment avoidance(i.e., discomfort with closeness and dependence on others) and attachment anxiety (i.e., fear of
rejection and abandonment) with a total of 12 items (6 items each), such as “I get frustrated if
my romantic partners are not available when I need them” for attachment anxiety and “I amnervous when my partner gets too close to me” for attachment avoidance. Items were rated on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. In this study,
Cronbach alphas were .70 and .71 for the avoidance and anxiety dimensions, respectively.

6.2.2

|

Couple adjustment

The 7-item version of the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (Fletcher,
Simpson, & Thomas, 2000) was used. This scale assesses seven dimensions of romantic relationship quality (satisfaction, commitment, trust, passion, love, intimacy, and romance) with one
item each on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree.
Alpha was .80 in this study.

LEJEUNE ET AL.

6.2.3

|

45

Self-defining couple-related memories

Participants were asked to describe in detail a personal memory of an event that they experienced within their current romantic relationship with their partner. They were instructed tochoose a memory that revealed how they perceive themselves within their current relationshipand that often comes to their mind. Instructions were adapted from previous studies on selfdefining memories (Philippe et al., 2013; Singer & Salovey, 1993).

6.2.4

|

Need satisfaction in the self-defining couple-related memory

Thereafter, participants were asked to rate the level of need satisfaction or need thwarting theyexperienced during the event of their memory. Ratings were made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from −3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), with option-0 indicating that there was anequal level of both need satisfaction and need thwarting in the event or that the event was notcharacterized by either need thwarting nor need satisfaction. The scale evaluated the three needs(autonomy, competence, and relatedness) postulated by self-determination theory (Ryan &Deci, 2017) with two items each. Sample items included: “I felt free to do things and to think
how I wanted” for autonomy, “I felt capable or skillful” for competence, and “I felt connected to
one or more people” for relatedness. All three needs were average in a single index, as typicallydone in self-determination research (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and in memory research using the construct of need satisfaction (Philippe et al., 2011). Alpha for this index was .85 in this study.

6.2.5

|

Networked memories

The memory network task (Brown & Schopflocher, 1998; Philippe et al., 2012; Philippe,
Lecours, & Beaulieu-Pelletier, 2009) was used to ask participants to describe other memories
that were somehow related to their main self-defining couple-related memory. These memories
had to come to their minds spontaneously. They were not required to be related to the romantic
sphere. Participants were provided with up to three textboxes to describe networked memories,
but they were instructed that they did not have to describe as many networked memories. For
each memory, they were asked to rate its need satisfaction using the same items as those usedwith the main memory (α = .90). As per past research (Philippe et al., 2009, 2012), need satisfaction in the couple-related episodic memory was combined with need satisfaction in the
networked memories to create a single score representing need satisfaction in couple-related
memory networks (they will also be examined separately in the analyses).

6.3 | Illustrative narrative excerpts
6.3.1

|

Participant A

Main couple-related memory: “One evening, my boyfriend and I started to talk about our exes.
I then realized that it had been one year since my ex-boyfriend and I had broken up. Later, aftera sexual intercourse, I started to cry in silence, without my boyfriend noticing it at first.
10 minutes later he asked me for a kiss and then realized that I was crying. He then started toworry that he might have done or said something to put me in that state. He then started to46

LEJEUNE ET AL.

comfort me, took me in his arms and told me to experience my emotions that it was okay. I wasreally astonished by this emotion and then I started to laugh hysterically. He didn't understandwhat was going on and why I was now laughing. But it made me feel good. He then asked methat he was only wondering if I wanted to be elsewhere with someone else. After one minute ofreflection and a heavy silence, I said no.”Networked memory 1: “One year before this event, my ex-boyfriend and I decided to put an
end to our relationship because we did not get along well anymore. I had strong feelings forhim, but he was rather felling friendship toward me. I spent the night crying all the tears of mybody, curled up on the floor of my room. My cat was next to me on the floor this night, as thecat of my current boyfriend was next to me in the bed one year later. I did not sleep. The torrentof tears continued until the next day afternoon. It was my first heartbreak.”Networked memory 2: “The next day of the first night spent to my new partner's house, I
was working with my ex-boyfriend. We were sitting next to each other all day long. These were
painful hours. I was feeling particularly on the edge. I could see in his eyes that he was feelingit. I had really turned the page and I was at the very least sad.”
Explanation: Participant A's memory network shows how a main couple-related memory
can exemplify both need satisfaction and need thwarting and how these are related to pastromantic events from the protagonist's life. A lingering concern is shown in the main memory,
but it is intensified by the networked memories.

6.3.2

|

Participant B

Main couple-related memory: “The first time that we kissed was particularly striking. He had
been in love with me for a long time ago and I didn't know it. It was a summer night and wewere walking together on a small island. We lied down on the ground to get some rest and thenI felt like kissing him. I couldn't help but to tell him, after which, I immediately apologized
because we were friends. However, he confessed everything and then we kissed. He took me in
his arms with so much strength, harder than anyone had done it before. I then felt very excitedwith intensity. It was the first time I had the impression to be that important for someone.”
Networked memory 1: “I remember having been very sick when I was to my boyfriend's
place. I was in the bathroom and then he entered. I didn't want him to see me in this condition,
but I was too weak to push him out. He filled up the bathtub, got me undressed and then liftedme to put me in the bathtub. I was very ashamed of myself, but at the same time I was very
touched that he was taking care of me like that.”
Networked memory 2: “I remember a trip that we have done at the beginning of our relationship. It was very difficult. We found ourselves in South America and we barely spoke Spanish and we didn't want to talk to each other, only to hurt each other. I felt totally helpless and I
was in anger with myself to react with so much meanness.”
Networked memory 3: “The first Christmas that I spent with his family. I am a single child,with no cousins, my parents are divorced, so it was a refreshing change to be in a family of
three children with parents who are still together. They showed me a lot of affection and thatwas really heartwarming.”
Explanation: While Participant B's main couple-related memory is a first-time experience(kiss), it is also about finding someone who makes Participant B feel special and significant,more so than anyone else. The networked memories further add to how resourceful the relationship is by highlighting how the boyfriend is able to be caring and non-judging in a time of

LEJEUNE ET AL.

47

need and how his whole family also is. They also provide a great illustration of how partner
buffering events can forge resourceful memory networks. The second networked memory ismore need-thwarting and can be interpreted in different ways. It may serve to remind the protagonist of potential threats within this relationship despite the positive, serve as a reminder tothe protagonist not to spoil the positive of the relationship (illustrated by the protagonist mentioning she was angered with herself to be so mean), or to illustrate growth with respect to therelationship, if their relationship does not go into such harsh conflict anymore.
In sum, couple-related memories and networked memories may serve as direct cognitive
resources to provide a sense of security with respect to one's current romantic relationshipthrough their levels of need satisfaction—a sense of security that may be particularly helpful toinsecurely attached individuals.

7 | R E SUL T S
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables. Attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance were both negatively correlated with couple adjustment,
thereby replicating previous findings (Simpson, 1990) that insecure attachment was negatively
associated with couple adjustment. More importantly, and in regard of our hypotheses, bothdimensions of attachment were negatively associated with need satisfaction in the couplerelated memory network, which was positively correlated with couple adjustments. Examining
separately the components of the couple-related memory network, that is, need satisfaction in
the main memory and in the networked memories showed that they were both negatively associated with the two dimensions of attachment and positively associated with couple
adjustment.
A first multiple regression analysis was conducted to analyze the associations of anxious
and avoidant attachment dimensions and need satisfaction in memory networks with couple
adjustment. At Step 1, we controlled for the following variables: Age, sex, and duration of therelationship. At Step 2, we introduced the two insecure attachment dimensions and at Step
3 need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks was entered. At Step 4, two interaction
terms were entered: each of the two attachment dimensions combined with need satisfaction incouple-related memory networks. Results are shown in Table 2. At Step 1, no control variable
was associated with couple adjustment. At Step 2, attachment avoidance and anxiety were both
negatively associated with couple adjustment. At Step 3, need satisfaction in the couple-related
memory network was found to be positively associated with couple adjustment.
At Step 4, there were also significant interactions between attachment anxiety and needsatisfaction in couple-related memory networks and between attachment avoidance and needsatisfaction in couple-related memory networks. Simple effect analyses (see Figure 1) revealed
that attachment anxiety was unrelated to couple adjustment when people had access to memory networks with high level (+1 SD) of need satisfaction, B = −.03, SE = .08, β = −.03,t(144) = −0.31, p = .75. However, attachment anxiety was negatively associated with couple
adjustment, B = −.27, SE = .09, β = −.31, t(144) = −3.07, p < .01, when the level of need satisfaction in memory networks was low (−1 SD). Similar results were obtained for attachment
avoidance, as it was strongly negatively associated with couple adjustment when the level ofneed satisfaction in memory networks was low (−1 SD), B =. −.50, SE = .075, β = −.57,t(144) = −6.70, p < .01, but much less negatively associated with couple adjustment, B = −.24,
SE = .09, β = −.28, t(144) = −2.73, p < .01, when the level of need satisfaction was high

1.52

5.62

(8) Couple adjustment

3.14

1.42
.96

0.00a

1.42

1.25

.88

.85

1.04

1.15

1.51

1.28

6.09

2.10

57.72

SD
—

−.06*

−.31**−.16*−.56**−.21**−.18**−.19**−.22**−.05.05*−.22**−.24**

.01

.09

.28**

−.52**—

3−.37**

−.14

.23**

−.02

—
.06*

2

1

Note. Correlations of Study 1 appear above the diagonal, whereas those of Study 2 appear below it.
Abbreviation: NS, need satisfaction.
*p < .05.
**
p < .01.
aStandardized measure.

.88

1.12

1.22

1.78

(6) Main memory NS(7) Networked memories NS

—
1.03

—

1.60

(5) Memory networks NS(4) Couple NS in general

1.04

3.07

2.21

(2) Attachment anxiety(3) Attachment avoidance

.83

75.38

48.96

(1) Relationship duration (months)

46.11

M

M

VariablesSD

Study 2

Study 1T A B L E 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations (Studies 1 and 2)

—

—

—

—

4

.77**

.16**

.23**

.21**

—

—

.24**

.94**

.80**

−.22**−.23**

−.08

5

—

—

.25**

.56**

.79**

−.17*

−.16*

−.05

6

—

—

.20**

.51**

.92**

−.21**−.21**

−.10

7

—

—

.37**

.24**

.37**

−.47**−.23**

−.19*

8

48
LEJEUNE ET AL.

LEJEUNE ET AL.

49

T A B L E 2 Multiple regression analyses of insecure attachment on couple adjustment moderated by needsatisfaction in couple-related memory networks (Studies 1 and 2)
Independent variables
Step 1

Study 1 (n = 153)
B

SE

Study 2 (n = 563)

β

t

B

SE

β

t

Age

.01

.01

−11

−1.14

−.01

.01

−.09

−3.02*

Sex

.07

.18

.03

.39

.01

.06

.00

.15

Relationship duration−.13

Couple NS in general

—

.19
—

−.06

−.66

−.01

.06

.00

−.15

—

—

.82

.03

.76

27.87*

Step 2
Att. anxiety

−.17

.06

−.19

−2.64*

−.03

.03

−.03

−1.21

Att. avoidance

−.43

.07

−.49

−6.49*

−.22

.03

−.23

−7.52*

.21

.06

.24

3.39*

.06

.03

.06

2.26*

Att. anxiety X memory networks NS

.12

.059

.14

2.08*

.05

.03

.07

2.01*

Att. avoidance X memory networks NS

.13

.050

.17

2.57*

.04

.03

.06

1.99*

Step 3
Memory networks NS
Step 4Abbreviations: Att., attachment; NS, need satisfaction;*p < .05.

F I G U R E 1 (a) Association between
attachment anxiety and couple adjustment
moderated by need satisfaction in couplerelated memory networks. (b) Association
between attachment avoidance and couple
adjustment moderated by need satisfaction
in couple-related memory networks

50

LEJEUNE ET AL.

(+1 SD). Thus, it seems that high levels of need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks
provide some reduction to the detrimental association between both attachment anxiety andavoidance and couple adjustment.
A second multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the independent associations of need satisfaction in the main couple-related memory and in the networked memories
with couple adjustment. We conducted the same regression analysis as above, but this time,
four interaction terms were included: (a) attachment avoidance × main memory need satisfaction; (b) attachment anxiety × main memory need satisfaction; (c) attachment avoidance ×
networked memories need satisfaction; (d) attachment anxiety × networked memories need satisfaction. Results revealed no significant interaction. Since the combined score showed significant results, it may be that the power of the present study was too low to detect significant
results across four moderations. Hence, small effect sizes in this context is unsurprising since
only one memory network was assessed and individuals are expected to be influenced by manyof them (Philippe et al., 2012). To allow for greater power, we ran the same regressions again,
examining attachment moderations by need satisfaction in the main memory and in networked
memories separately. As can be seen in Table 3, doing so revealed that moderations of attachment by need satisfaction in the main memory were not significant (p > .20). However, moderations by need satisfaction in the networked memories were significant (avoidance × needsatisfaction in networked memories, β = .19, p = .005) or marginally significant (anxiety × needsatisfaction in networked memories, β = .12, p = .076). Simple effects of these moderations were
the same as those presented above for the whole memory network (see Figures S1A and S1B).
In sum, these results provide some support to our hypotheses, although it is unclear
whether these were fully or just partially supported, given the lower power to detect multiple
significant moderations at the same time. Memory networks do appear to reduce the negative
association of insecure attachments with couple adjustment. However, results showed that it
was mostly the networked memories associated with the couple-related main memories thatwere driving this moderation effect. Examination of the main self-defining memories revealed
that many were positive and need satisfying (M = 1.78, SD = 1.22, on a − 3 to +3 Likert scale)and they were more need satisfying than the networked memories (M = 1.51, SD = 1.14),t(152) = 2.74, p < .01. Thus, while the main self-defining memory represents key aspects of thecurrent relationship (Philippe et al., 2013) the networked memories associated with it may represent more core relational- and person-based representations that are more beneficial at buffering the association between insecure attachment and couple adjustment.

8 | S T UDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to replicate the findings of Study 1 within a larger sample size thatwould allow us to detect small effect sizes in distinguishing between the main self-defining
couple-related memory and networked memories. Moreover, in this study, we controlled for thelevel of need satisfaction generally experienced in the relationship. This latter control variable
is of critical importance to show that the results are specifically due to the level of need satisfaction characterizing specific couple-related memories and their organization in networks andnot due to a general abstracted experience of how much individuals perceive that their psychological needs are generally satisfied by their partner within their romantic relationship. As
shown in other studies examining other life domains, the level of need satisfaction people generally experience or experience within a given domain is not the same as the level of need

LEJEUNE ET AL.

51

T A B L E 3 Multiple regression analyses of insecure attachment on couple adjustment moderated by needsatisfaction in a couple-related memory and their networked memories, separately (Study 1)
Study 1B

Independent variables

Study 2
SE

β

t

B

SE

β

t

Age

.01

.01

−11

−1.14

−.01

.00

−.07

−2.50*

Sex

.07

.18

.03

.39

.05

.06

.02

.79

Relationship duration

−.13

.19

−.06

−.66

−.09

.06

−.04

−1.57

.68

.03

.62

19.88*

Att. anxiety

−.17

.06

−.19

−2.64*

−.09

.04

−.09

−2.11*

Att. avoidance

−.43

.07

−.49

−6.49*

−.27

.04

−.28

−6.36*

Main memory NS

.03

.07

.03

.42

.05

.03

.05

1.65

.20

.07

.23

2.87*

.02

.03

.02

.50

Att. anxiety X Main memory NS

.07

.07

.07

.98

−.02

.03

−.02

−.74

Att. avoidance X Main memory NSa

.05

.06

.06

.88

−.03

.03

−.03

−.85

.10

.06

.12

1.78**

.06

.03

.09

2.16*

.14

.05

.19

2.84*

.07

.03

.09

2.12*

Couple NS in general

Networked memories NS
aAtt. anxiety X networked memories NSaaAtt. avoidance X networked memories NS

Abbreviations: Att., attachment; NS, need satisfaction.
In Study 1, given the lower power, the interactions with attachment were entered separately for the main memory andthe networked memories (but still while controlling for NS main memory and networked memories). In Study 2, allfour interaction terms were entered together in the same regression.
*p < .05.
**
p < .10.
asatisfaction they experienced in distinct life episodes encoded in memories related to the same
domain (Milyavskaya, Philippe, & Koestner, 2013; Philippe et al., 2013). In line with the resultsof Study 1, it was again hypothesized that need satisfaction in memory networks would moderate the relationship between insecure attachment and couple adjustment, but that this would
be especially the case of networked memories. Moreover, as in Study 1, this result should holdeven after controlling for common demographics and general need satisfaction in therelationship.

9 | METHOD
9.1 | Participants and procedure
A total of 567 undergraduates and graduates (78.3% females) who were engaged in a romantic
relationship for more than 3 months were recruited from a French-Canadian university. Participants' mean age was 25.59 years (SD = 6.48). A priori power analysis revealed that to detect
small effect sizes of R2 = .02 within a multiple regression analysis with nine predictors at an
α = .05 with a power of .80, a sample of 539 participants was needed. Procedures were the sameas those of Study 1.

52

LEJEUNE ET AL.

9.2 | Measures
9.2.1

|

Attachment

The Experience in Close Relationships Short-form scale (Wei et al., 2007) was used again in
Study 2. Cronbach alphas were .70 and .71 for the avoidance and anxiety dimensions,
respectively.

9.2.2

|

Couple adjustment

To ensure a high validity and reliability of the dependent variable, we used the full 21-item version of the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (Fletcher et al., 2000). In
addition, participants also completed the short 4-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Sabourin,
Valois, & Lussier, 2005). Items of these two scales were all rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. These two scales were highly correlated(r = .82, p < .01) and were combined in a single score representing couple adjustment (α = .94).

9.2.3

|

Need satisfaction in the relationship in general

The 9-item Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships scale (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, &Deci, 2000) was used to evaluate the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
needs within participants' current romantic relationship in general (α = .73). Items were rated
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 loved and valued” (relatedness) and “When I am
with my partner, I feel free to be who I am” (autonomy). This scale assesses the level of needsatisfaction perceived in general in the romantic relationship, whereas need satisfaction in acouple-related memory assesses the level of need satisfaction experienced in one specific past
event related to the romantic relationship. Both measures are typically only moderately correlated (Philippe et al., 2013).

9.2.4 | Self-defining couple-related memories and networked
memories
As in Study 1, participants were asked to describe in detail a personal memory of an event thatthey experienced within their current romantic relationship. Instructions for this couple-related
memory and networked memories were the same as those of Study 1 and items to assess needsatisfaction in memories were also the same. Alphas for the main memory was .85 and .90 for
the networked memories.

10 | RESULTS
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables of Study 2. As
in Study 1, attachment anxiety and avoidance were both negatively correlated with couple

LEJEUNE ET AL.

53

adjustment and with need satisfaction in the couple-related memory network, while the latter
was positively associated with couple adjustment. Again, this pattern of correlations was thesame for need satisfaction in the main memory and for need satisfaction in the networked
memories when they were considered separately. Moreover, as found in previous research(La Guardia et al., 2000), there was a strong positive correlation between need satisfaction in
the relationship in general and couple adjustment and negative associations between this former construct and attachment avoidance and anxiety. Need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks and need satisfaction in the relationship in general were only weakly correlated.
The same multiple regression analyses conducted in Study 1 were again used in Study 2, thistime adding need satisfaction in the relationship in general as a control variable at Step 1.
Results are shown in Table 2. At Step 1, age was negatively associated with couple adjustment,
whereas need satisfaction in the relationship in general was strongly and positively associatedwith couple adjustment. At Step 2, attachment avoidance, but not anxiety, was negatively associated with couple adjustment. At Step 3, need satisfaction in the couple-related memory network was positively associated with couple adjustment.
At Step 4, there were also significant interactions between attachment anxiety and need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks and between attachment avoidance and need satisfaction in couple-related memory networks. Simple effect analyses revealed the exact same
pattern as those of Study 1 (see Figures S2A and S2B). Specifically, attachment anxiety was
unrelated to couple adjustment when people reported memory networks with a high level (+1SD) of need satisfaction, B = .028, SE = .037, β = .029, t(557) = 0.75, p = .45. However, attachment anxiety was negatively associated with couple adjustment, B = −.073, SE = .037,
β = −.077, t(557) = −2.00, p = .046, when the level of need satisfaction in memory networks
was low (−1 SD). Similar results were obtained for attachment avoidance, as it was strongly
negatively associated with couple adjustment when the level of need satisfaction in the memory
network was low (−1 SD), B = −.25, SE = .035, β = −.26, t(557) = −7.16, p < .01, but much lessnegatively associated with couple adjustment, B = −.15, SE = .042, β = −.16, t(557) = −3.58,
p < .01, when the level of need satisfaction was high (+1 SD).
A second multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the independent associations of need satisfaction in the main memory and in the networked memories with couple
adjustment. We conducted the same regression analysis as above, but this time, four interaction
terms were included at Step 4: (a) attachment avoidance × main memory need satisfaction;(b) Attachment anxiety × main memory need satisfaction; (c) attachment avoidance ×
networked memories need satisfaction; (d) attachment anxiety × networked memories need satisfaction. Results (see Table 3) revealed that the interaction terms of the main memory with
attachment anxiety and avoidance were non-significantly associated with couple adjustment,
βs < j.027j, t(554) < j.46j, ns, whereas the interactions between need satisfaction in the
networked memories and attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were significantly
associated with couple adjustment. Simple effects revealed very similar patterns to those above(see Figures S3A and S3B). Specifically, attachment anxiety was unrelated to couple adjustment
when people reported networked memories with a high level (+1 SD) of need satisfaction,
B = .044, SE = .040, β = .046, t(554) = 1.10, p = .27, but negatively associated with couple
adjustment, B = −.085, SE = .040, β = −.089, t(554) = −2.11, p = .035, when the level of needsatisfaction in networked memories was low (−1 SD). Attachment avoidance was strongly negatively associated with couple adjustment when the level of need satisfaction in the memory network was low (−1 SD), B = −.27, SE = .042, β = −.28, t(554) = −6.36, p < .001, but much lessnegatively associated with couple adjustment, B = −.13, SE = .048, β = −.13, t(554) = −2.62,

54

LEJEUNE ET AL.

p < .01, when the level of need satisfaction was high (+1 SD). Thus, it seems that networked
memories is the key variable helping to buffer the negative association of attachment anxiety
and avoidance with couple adjustment.

1 1 | G E N E R A L DI S C U S S I O N
The present study sought to examine the moderating role of couple-related memory networks
on the association between attachment insecurity and couple adjustment. The results suggestthat couple-related memory networks, particularly networked memories associated with a main
couple-related memory, could buffer the negative association of attachment insecurity with couple adjustment. On the one hand, both attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively associated with need satisfaction in couple-related self-defining memory network, implying that
insecure individuals have access to less need-satisfying memory networks revolving aroundromantic relationships. On the other hand, insecurely attached individuals who could retrieve
need-satisfying networked memories associated with their main couple-related memory had
higher couple adjustment than those who only had access to less need-satisfying networked
memories. We can speculate that the default mode of insecurely attached individuals' behavioral system, which is deactivation or hyperactivation of their security seeking strategies, arepartly blunted by need-satisfying memory networks, which disposes insecurely attached individuals to reassess their couple adjustment through more secure relational memories. Of importance, these results were obtained in Study 2 even after controlling for general perceptions ofneed satisfaction in the relationship. This particular finding speaks to the particularity of memories and to how they can specifically affect key outcomes independently of traits or generalperceptions (Adler, Lodi-Smith, Philippe, & Houle, 2016).
Our study adds credence to previous studies in which need-satisfying memories were linked
to the ability to downregulate negative emotions (Houle & Philippe, 2017; Philippe et al., 2018).
Recruiting positive or need-satisfying memory networks has been shown to facilitate the selfgeneration of positive emotions and situational well-being in times of stress (Philippe
et al., 2009; Philippe et al., 2012; Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017). The present study suggests that need-satisfying memory networks can be recruited to potentially alleviate the negative reactions to separation threats associated with attachment insecurity, thereby sustaining
couple adjustment. Experimental studies in which couple-related memory networks are primed
could add further support to this claim. Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to examine
whether need satisfying memories can produce stable changes in the behavioral system default
mode of insecurely attached individuals.

11.1 | Security-enhancing memories
Overall, our results are in line with previous studies, which found that need satisfying memories led to positive outcomes, such as well-being, relationship quality, and friend satisfaction(Bouizegarene & Philippe, 2018; Philippe et al., 2012, 2013). These studies found that even after
taking into account attachment, need satisfaction in memory networks was positively associatedwith couple adjustment. Moreover, insecure attachments were negatively associated with needsatisfaction in memory networks, suggesting that insecurely attached individuals may haveaccess to couple-related memory networks characterized by lower levels of need satisfaction.

LEJEUNE ET AL.

55

This latter result is consistent with the findings that high levels of need satisfaction are associated with attachment security (La Guardia et al., 2000), as high levels of relatedness, autonomy,
and competence can boost the sense of security of an individual and a secure attachment canfacilitate the satisfaction of these psychological needs within relationships. However, this study
showed this association at the level of episodic memories.
Perhaps more importantly, need-satisfying networked memories mitigated the negative
associations between insecure attachment dimensions and couple adjustment. Insecure individuals with avoidant or anxious relational schemas will hold negative beliefs on how they shouldbe treated and how they perceive their romantic partners. Anxious individuals hold the negative
belief that they are not worthy to be loved, whereas avoidant individuals embrace the negative
belief that closeness or emotional involvement is dangerous. In both cases, access to couplerelated need-satisfying memories that are security-enhancing lessened the negative associationof their anxious or avoidant relational schema with couple adjustment. Instead of exclusively
relying on insecure relational schemas in their interactions with their partner, they might also
recruit a sense of security from their memories in which they felt high satisfaction for theirbasic psychological needs. Conversely, need-thwarting memory networks may even increase
the negative impact of one's insecure relational schemas, as shown by the fact that insecureindividuals who reported such kind of networked memories (i.e., −1 SD) had the lowest level ofcouple adjustment. Interestingly, need satisfaction in couple-related memory network was notbeneficial to couple adjustment for individuals with low attachment anxiety and avoidance (seeFigure 1). These results further add to the claim that couple-related memory networks may
serve as a cognitive resource to sustain romantic relationships for individuals with insecureschemas. Conversely, people with a secure attachment may not need to chronically draw fromtheir memories for further soothing representations. However, these memory networks mightplay a role, even for securely attached people, when they are facing adversity or significant
stress at a certain time in their relationships. Because of the chronic threats that they experience, individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment may more chronically recruit memory
networks to sooth their stress. Given the frequent uses of such memory networks, insecure individuals with more need-satisfying memory networks should report greater couple adjustment
than insecure individuals with less need-satisfying memory networks, as shown by the current
findings. Conversely, securely attached people may only recruit such memory networks when
there is a clear situational threat. Given the less frequent uses of their couple-related memory
networks, their effect on couple adjustment may be weaker in cross-sectional studies. Sucheffects might be more easily observed in an experimental study inducing a relational threat, forinstance. Future studies are needed to investigate this issue.

11.2 | Networked memories
Another interesting finding of our studies is that when pitted against each other in a multiple
regression, networked memories significantly moderated the relationship between both attachment anxiety and avoidance, whereas the main self-defining memory did not. In terms of needsatisfaction, the couple self-defining memory mean was higher than the mean of networked
memories. This entails that most individuals have access to some need-satisfying memories
directly related to their current romantic relationship. Indeed, it would appear incongruous for
an individual to remain in a romantic relationship that is uniquely characterized by needthwarting negative memories—probably a very rare situation. Conversely, networked memories

56

LEJEUNE ET AL.

may be about the current relationship or about other past relationships or even other remotely
related events (see the illustrative examples provided in Study1). These other memories may
affect individuals' current romantic relationship outcomes because they are cognitively linked
with current relationship memories. Since these other memories recruit and exemplify otherlingering concerns and issues or events of growth and resilience, they are likely to transpire
within one's current romantic relationship and influence its outcomes. Access to networked
memories that are more need satisfying instead of need thwarting appears to act as a key cognitive resource buffering the negative impact of insecure attachment schemas.
The concept of networked memories therefore appears as a particularly fruitful research avenue to investigate the potential issues and concerns that emerged from past events and that insecure individuals may carry with themselves throughout their lives. Over and above one's
attachment schemas, there seems to be a Context (one's current romantic relationship) × memories (past events cognitively linked to one's current romantic relationship) interaction. Changing
the context or the memories could result in a change in couple adjustment. For instance, anintervention could focus on context: a partner would become more supportive, which would
buffer the influence of existing need thwarting couple-related memories on couple adjustment
by creating new need-satisfying couple-related memories in both partners. Conversely, a therapy
could focus on memories (e.g., Lane, Ryan, Nadel, & Greenberg, 2015): need thwarting memories
could be reappraised as need satisfying by a partner, or they could become aware of (or attribute
more importance to) existing need-satisfying couple-related memories, thereby modifying thecouple memory networks. This would result in a greater access to security-enhancing memories
that could buffer the effects of attachment insecurity on couple adjustment. Worthy of note, thiscontext × memory interaction is reminiscent of the cognitive-affective system theory (Mischel &Shoda, 1995) and future research might do well in integrating both models.

11.3 | Future research and limitations
Our study also presents a number of limitations. First, the design of the two studies was crosssectional, which prevented us from drawing any conclusion with respect to causality or the direction of the effects observed. Further research would be needed to verify whether couple-related
memory networks are stable over time and can lead to changes in couple adjustment or reduce
the negative association between insecure attachment and couple adjustment over time. Some
evidence points in that direction. Rowe and Carnelley (2003) showed that after being primed
with a security-enhancing representation of an attachment figure, participants had more positive
expectations toward their current relationship partner's behavior for several days. Because selfdefining couple-related memory networks are chronically accessed and frequently activated, they
may forge those positive expectations over time, hence, increasing couple adjustment and reducing the negative association between insecure attachment and couple adjustment.
Second, the age and sex of the participants limit the generalization of our results, as participants in both studies were for the most part young female adults. The present findings need tobe replicated with a sample recruited from the general population. Third, our study did notinclude dyads, which limits our understanding of how both partners' couple-related memory
networks interact to affect the perceptions of each partner. The recruitment of dyads to examine
how memories of relationships can buffer the attachment insecurity of both relationship partners, appears as a fruitful future research avenue. A dyadic study has already shown that a needsatisfying couple-related memory in a partner was associated with greater commitment in the

LEJEUNE ET AL.

57

other partner, even after controlling for how the partner remembered that memory(Guilbault & Philippe, 2017). Thus, the way a memory for a couple-event is constructed in one
partner's mind may affect their own perceived relationship outcomes, but also the ones of theother partner. This potentially occurs through partner buffering behaviors (Simpson & Overall,2014) facilitated by the activation of couple-related need-satisfying memory networks(i.e., Actor's need-satisfying memory networks à Actor's caring and supporting behaviors àPartner's perceived satisfaction with the relationships). However, future research is needed froma dyadic perspective to better understand the impact of these couple-related memory networks
in insecure individuals on the other partner of the romantic relationship prior to promoting the
exploration of memories as a potential avenue for intervention with insecure individuals.
Overall, two studies showed that need-satisfying couple-related memory networks could act
as a cognitive resource to protect couple adjustment from the negative effects of both avoidant
and anxious insecure attachment. When examined separately, it was shown that need satisfying
networked memories, but not main memories, moderated the negative association of insecureattachment with couple adjustment. Future research could use dyadic research design to understand the interpersonal dynamics of these associations, and could also employ experimental
design to examine precisely how insecurely and securely attached persons use memories tobuffer stressful relational situations.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
As part of IARR's encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the
research are available. Both can be obtained by emailing the corresponding author at philippe.
frederick@uqam.ca
ORCID
Frederick L. Philippe

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6997-8072

E N D N O T ES
1

Couple-related memories are memories related to one's couple romantic relationship. They are typically memories of an event that directly occurred with one's partner, that involves one's partner in thoughts, or that pertains to one's romantic relationship (e.g., buying a house with my partner).

2

Episodic memories are typically composed of remembered visual images, but also of other sensory inputs(e.g., auditory, olfactory, felt sensations) and are characterized by an experiential component (e.g., emotion,need, goal). Autobiographical memories are the narrated and reconstructed experience of an episodic memory
into a tentatively cogent, chronologically coherent, and scripted manner. In this research, since we more specifically focus on the experiential component of memories (i.e., need satisfaction) than their narrated form, we
use the term episodic memories.

3

A memory network is a collection of memories associated with each other based on surface features (e.g., same
location, same person, same object, same emotion) or aggregating on a same theme, value, identity self-aspect,
or a more abstract representation. When a memory network is considered, there is typically a main memorythat associates with other memories, called networked memories.

R EF E RE N C E S
Adler, J. M., Lodi-Smith, J., Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I. (2016). The incremental validity of narrative identity inpredicting well-being: A review of the field and recommendations for the future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 142–175.

58

LEJEUNE ET AL.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-categorymodel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bouizegarene, N., & Philippe, F. L. (2016). Episodic memories as building blocks of identity processing styles andlife domains satisfaction: Examining need satisfaction and need for cognitive closure in memories. Memory,24, 616–628.
Bouizegarene, N., & Philippe, F. L. (2018). Longitudinal directive effect of need satisfaction in self-defining memories on friend related identity processing styles and friend satisfaction. Self and Identity, 17, 127–138.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment: Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger. London: The Hogarth Press
and the Institute of Psycho-analysis.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss (Vol. 3). New York: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Brown, N. R., & Schopflocher, D. (1998). Event clusters: An organization of personal events in autobiographicalmemory. Psychological Science, 9, 470–475.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810–832.
Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 594–628.
Conway, M. A. (2009). Episodic memories. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2305–2313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2009.02.003
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the selfmemory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261–288.
Conway, M. A., Singer, J. A., & Tagini, A. (2004). The self and autobiographical memory: Correspondence andcoherence. Social Cognition, 22, 491–529. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.5.491.50768
Demblon, J., Bahri, M. A., & D'Argembeau, A. (2016). Neural correlates of event clusters in past and future
thoughts: How the brain integrates specific episodes with autobiographical knowledge. NeuroImage, 127,
257–266.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
Guilbault, V., & Philippe, F. L. (2017). Commitment in romantic relationships as a function of partners' encodingof important couple-related memories. Memory, 25, 595–606.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (p. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Houle, I., & Philippe, F. L. (2017). Need satisfaction in episodic memories impacts mood at retrieval and wellbeing over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 194–199.
Houle, I., Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Roulez, J. (2018). Networks of self-defining memories as a contributing
factor to emotional openness. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 363–370.
Kemp, S., Burt, C. D., & Malinen, S. (2009). Investigating the structure of autobiographical memory using reaction times. Memory, 17, 511–517.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of
attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384.
Lane, R. D., Ryan, L., Nadel, L., & Greenberg, L. (2015). Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and theprocess of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e1.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000041
Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1171–1187.
Lee, G. R., & Shehan, C. L. (1989). Retirement and marital satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 44, S226–S230.
Li, T., & Chan, D. K. S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 406–419.

LEJEUNE ET AL.

59

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 143–165). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 917–925.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the securebase schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
97–115.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 56–152.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 34–38.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89, 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024515519160
Milyavskaya, M., Philippe, F. L., & Koestner, R. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction across levels of experience: Their organization and contribution to general well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
41–51.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations,dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived
regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.
Philippe, F. L., & Bernard-Desrosiers, L. (2017). The odyssey of episodic memories: Identifying the paths and processes through which they contribute to well-being. Journal of Personality, 85, 518–529.
Philippe, F. L., Dobbin, A. E., Ross, S., & Houle, I. (2018). Resilience facilitates positive emotionality and integration of negative memories in need satisfying memory networks: An experimental study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 586–596.
Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I. (2020). Cognitive integration of personal or public events affects mental health: Examining memory networks in a case of natural flooding disaster. Journal of Personality, 88, 861–873.
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., & Lecours, S. (2011). The role of need satisfaction as a distinct
and basic psychological component of autobiographical memories: A look at well-being. Journal of Personality, 79, 905–938.
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Lecours, S., & Lekes, N. (2012). The role of episodic memories
in current and future well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 505–519.
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2013). On the directive function of episodic memories in people's lives:
A look at romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 164–179.
Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Beaulieu-Pelletier, G. (2009). Resilience and positive emotions: Examining the roleof emotional memories. Journal of Personality, 77, 139–176.
Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young adults' representations ofand behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 105–121.
Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing of attachment–relevant information: Primed–style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect. Personal Relationships, 10,
59–75.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development,
and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 17, 15–27.

60

LEJEUNE ET AL.

Schumm, W. R., Webb, F. J., & Bollman, S. R. (1998). Gender and marital satisfaction: Data from the National
Survey of families and households. Psychological Reports, 83, 319–327.
Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and altering hurt feelings: An
attachment-theoretical perspective on the generation and regulation of emotions. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.),
Advances in personal relationships. Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 92–119). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770548.007
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(5), 971–980.
Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 54–59.
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self: Emotion and memory in personality. New York: Free
Press.
Sutin, A. R., & Gillath, O. (2009). Autobiographical memory phenomenology and content mediate attachment
style and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0014917
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.
Williams, H. L., Conway, M. A., & Cohen, G. (2008). Autobiographical memory. Memory in the Real World, 3rdedition, (21–90). London: Psychology Press.

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Lejeune A, Bouizegarene N, Philippe FL. Association between
attachment insecurity and couple adjustment: Moderation by couple memory networks.
Pers Relationship. 2021;28:39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12360