1. Objectifs

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)

Questions/Hypothèses :

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)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :

- 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

3. Résumé

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)