Lydon, John E. et Linardatos, Lisa. 2012. «The Why of Relationship Commitment». Dans The Science of the Couple: The Ontario Symposium Volume 12 , sous la dir. de Lorne Campbell, Olson, James M., Zanna, Mark P. et LaGuardia, Jennifer, p. 110-137. New York (États-Unis): Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Intentions : Les auteurs s’intéressent à la question de l’engagement dans le couple. Ils nomment trois raisons qui expliquent la motivation des couples à s’engager. «A person may commit to a relationship because the relationship has been pleasant, enjoyable, and satisfying, what might be described as satisfaction-based commitment (M. Johnson, 1991) or enlightened self-interest. […] A second reason to commit to a relationship is because it is seen as something one ought to do (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This has been referred to as introjection and reprensents an assimilation of values, standards, and pressures of others that induce guilt if not otherwise followed. A third reason, and the focus of our research, has been commitment because the relationship reflects a person’s identity(Brickman, 1987; Burke & Reitzes, 1991), having been incorporated into one’s representation of self. This is reffered to as identification.» (p. 120)
Questions/Hypothèses : «It is likely that all three of these bases of commitment uniquely contribute to relationship functioning; however, we hypothesize that identification may be especially crucial in sustaining relationships in the face of adversity.» (p. 120)
Échantillon/Matériau : Données documentaires diverses
Type de traitement des données : Analyse théorique
«There are a least two theoretical approaches from which to study identification: (1) a motivational perspective, as we have done in the academic domain (Burton, Lydon, D’alessandro, & Koestner, 2006); and (2) a self-construal perspective (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). We review these theorical approaches and demonstrate how we have applied them in our own research. […] The concept of relationship identification follows from the work on relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992) and relational selves (Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, 2006), which illustrate the importance of how one mentally represents the relationship between self and other.» (p. 121) In conclusion, the authors wrote that «[p]ositive relationship experiences can make a person feel good, but the true power of a relationship to influence, and maybe even transform, one’s self-worth is contingent on one taking the risk to identify with the relationship, to staking a claim that the relationship is indeed an important, integral part of one’s self. It may be safer to hold back and not identify, thereby avoiding the potential pain of rejection or betrayal. But a lack of identification may weaken one’s ability to think and do the things that help sustain de relationship, and self-protective reticence to identify may fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy.» (p. 137)
A Little Reminder Is All It Takes: The Effects of Priming and Relational Selfconstrual on Responses to Partner Transgressions
Référence bibliographique 
Linardatos, Lisa et Lydon, John E. 2011. «A Little Reminder Is All It Takes: The Effects of Priming and Relational Selfconstrual on Responses to Partner Transgressions ». Self and Identity, vol. 10, no 1, p. 85-100.
Intentions : «In the present study, we examined how priming the relationship can buffer individuals from reciprocating negative partner behavior and instead increase pro-relationship responses, in addition to assessing how individual differences in relational self-construal may moderate this effect.» (p. 85)
Questions/Hypothèses : «We hypothesized that a relational prime would allow individuals to interpret partner misbehavior within a broader relational context, thus avoiding narrowly focusing on a specific negative behavior, and consequently making more benign attributions for the negative behavior.» (p. 88-89)
Échantillon/Matériau : Cent-quarante étudiants de l’université McGill (59 hommes et 81 femmes) composent l’échantillon de cette étude.
Instruments : Questionnaires
Type de traitement des données : Analyse statistique
«When faced with a partner transgression, what causes an individual to avoid the temptation to respond in kind? We theorized that for those who incorporate their close relationships into their sense of self, priming a mental representation of their romantic partner would activate relationship-relevant cognitive–affective associations that would promote pro-relationship responding. [...] Results demonstrated that participants with a highly relational self-construal exhibited an increase in benign attributions for a partner transgression following a relationship reminder, controlling for relationship satisfaction and commitment. It was concluded that relational self-construal is an important individual difference variable in the experimental activation of relationship maintenance processes.» (p. 85)
Relationship-Specific Identification and Spontaneous Relationship Maintenance Processes
Référence bibliographique 
Linardatos, Lisa et Lydon, John E. 2011. «Relationship-Specific Identification and Spontaneous Relationship Maintenance Processes ». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 101, no 4, p. 737-753.
Intentions : Cet article présente la méthodologie et les résultats de quatre recherches menées par les auteurs sur le sujet général suivant: «Attractive alternative partners pose a relational threat to people in romantic relationships. Given that people are often limited in their time and energy, having the capacity to effortlessly respond to such relational threats is extremely useful. In 4 studies, we explored how people’s identity in terms of their romantic relationship—their relationship-specific identity—affects their relationship-protective behaviors» (p. 737)
Hypothèses de l’étude 1: «We predicted that relationship-specific identification would be moderately correlated with relational selfconstrual (Hypothesis 1a), commitment (Hypothesis 1b), and satisfaction (Hypothesis 1c). We also expected that relationshipspecific identification would account for unique variance in commitment, controlling for the variance accounted for by satisfaction and relational self-construal (Hypothesis 1d).» (p. 740)
Hypothèse de l’étude 2: «We predicted that participants higher on relationship-specific identification would be more likely to mention their partner or relationship when interacting with an attractive alternative of their preferred sex (Hypothesis 2).» (p. 742)
Hypothèse de l’étude 3: «We predicted that, when faced with a relational threat, participants high in relationship-specific identification would be more likely to decrease attentional adhesion to an attractive alternative (Hypothesis 3).» (p. 744)
Hypothèses de l’étude 4: «We predicted that the higher participants were in relationship-specific identification, the greater the chances of their relationship remaining intact over time (Hypothesis 4). Additionally, based on the idea that commitment encompasses a range of motivations for staying in a relationship, we predicted that it would be a more robust predictor of relationship survival when compared with relationship-specific identification (Hypothesis 5).» (p. 747)
- Étude 1: «[t]hree hundred and thirty-eight (95 male, 243 female) participants from McGill University (Montréal, Québec, Canada).» (p. 741) - Étude 2: «[o]ne hundred and fifty-nine participants (50 male, 109 female) from McGill University.» (p. 742) - Étude 3: «[n]inety participants (18 male, 72 female) from McGill University.» (p. 744) - Étude 4: «[f]ive hundred and fifteen participants who had participated in past studies over a 3-year period and who were eligible to participate (i.e., were in a romantic relationship […]).» (p. 747)
Instruments : Questionnaire
Type de traitement des données : Analyse statistique
À la lumière de l’étude 1, les auteurs constatent que «relationship-specific identification was significantly correlated with relational selfconstrual, commitment, and satisfaction. Although relationship-specific identification was significantly correlated with these three related variables, the correlations were not so high as to suggest that they are completely overlapping constructs.» (p. 741) Les résultats de l’étude 2 «showed that relationship-specific identification was only associated with mentions of one’s partner when participants were ostensibly interacting with an attractive, available member of their preferred sex. Moreover, this finding remained significant controlling for the variance accounted for by commitment, suggesting that, under threat, it may be identification in particular that is crucial in motivating pro-relationship responding.» (p. 744) Les résultats de la troisième étude démontrent que «relationship-specific identification is associated with the relatively automatic, lower order attentional process known as attentional adhesion. Although the omnibus three-way interaction was marginal, focused tests revealed a highly significant two-way effect in the relational threat condition.» (p. 746) Les résultats de la dernière étude montrent que «the degree to which individuals identify with their relationships is associated with the survival of the relationship up to 3 years after the initial assessment, such that those higher in relationship-specific identification were less likely to have broken up with their partner. Additionally, relationship-specific identification predicted relationship survival, controlling for the variance accounted for by relational selfconstrual.» (p. 747) Pour les auteurs, l’ensemble des études «provide convergent support for the idea that relationship-specific identification is associated with relationship maintenance behaviors, particularly those that are relatively spontaneous and occur in the face of relational threat, as well as relationship survival.» (p. 748)