Couples’ We-Ness and Separateness During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown: A Longitudinal Perspective

Abstract

This 5-wave longitudinal study aimed to monitor the feeling of we-ness and separateness over one year of the COVID-19 pandemic by examining partners’ natural pronoun usage when reporting couple interactions. Compared to the start of the pandemic, a general decline of we-ness was found after one year. Moreover, the changes in couple we-ness were non-linear, resulting in an increase at the end of the strict lockdown, followed by a decrease. No change in couple separateness was found.

Keywords

we-ness separateness pronoun usage COVID-19 pandemic lockdown couple

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agnew

C. R.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Langston

C. A.

(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Berg

C. A.

Upchurch

(2007). A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 920–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920

Bloom

H. S.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Weiss

M. J.

Porter

(2017). Using multisite experiments to study cross-site variation in treatment effects: A hybrid approach with fixed intercepts and a random treatment coefficients. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 817–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1264518

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Decade of behavior. Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002

Brodard

Charvoz

Antonietti

J.-P.

Rossier

Bodenmann

Snyder

D. K.

(2015). Validation de la version française de l’Inventaire de satisfaction conjugale msi-r [Validation of the French version of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI-R)]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science / Revue Canadienne des sciences du comportement, 47(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037589

Candel

O.-S.

Jitaru

(2021). COVID-19 and romantic relationships. Encyclopedia, 1(4), 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia1040079

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Kay

A. C.

(2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262852

Fletcher

G. J.

Fincham

F. D.

Cramer

Heron

(1987). The role of attributions in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.481

10.

Galdiolo

Culot

Delannoy

Mauroy

Gaugue

(2022a). Couple satisfaction during 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Dyadic coping as a protective factor. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 11(3), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000230

11.

Galdiolo

Culot

Delannoy

Mauroy

Laforgue

Gaugue

(2022b). Harmful stress-related couple processes during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown: A longitudinal dyadic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 819874. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819874

12.

Galdiolo

Roskam

Verhofstadt

L. L.

De Mol

Dewinne

Vandaudenard

(2016). Associations between relational pronoun usage and the quality of early family interactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01719

13.

Hinnekens

Lemmens

Vanhee

Verhofstadt

(2016). A pronoun analysis of couples’ support transactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00077

14.

Karan

Rosenthal

Robbins

M. L.

(2019). Meta-analytic evidence that we-talk predicts relationship and personal functioning in romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2624–2651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518795336

15.

Krokoff

L. J.

Gottman

J. M.

Hass

S. D.

(1989). Validation of a global rapid couples interaction scoring system. Behavioral Assessment, 11(1), 65–79. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-31546-001

16.

Mroczek

D. K.

Spiro

(2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: Findings from the normative aging study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(3), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.3.P153

17.

Pauly

Gerstorf

Wahl

H.-W.

Hoppmann

C. A.

(2021). A developmental-contextual model of couple synchrony across adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 36(8), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000651

18.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

19.

Reid

D. W.

Ahmad

(2015). Identification with the relationship as essential to marital resilience: Theory, application, and evidence. In Skerrett

Fergus

(Eds.), Couple resilience (pp. 139–161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_8

20.

Saxbe

D. E.

Beckes

Stoycos

S. A.

Coan

J. A.

(2020). Social allostasis and social allostatic load: A new model for research in social dynamics, stress, and health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619876528

21.

Schembri

(2020). No couple is an island: Communities of support in couple relationships. In Abela

Vella

Piscopo

(Eds.), Couples relationships in a global context (pp. 391–402). Springer.

22.

Schokkenbroek

J. M.

Hardyns

Anrijs

Ponnet

(2021). Partners in lockdown: Relationship stress in men and women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 10(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000172

23.

Schwarz

Groves

R. M.

Schuman

(1998). Survey methods. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 143–179). Oxford University Press.

24.

Seider

B. H.

Hirschberger

Nelson

K. L.

Levenson

R. W.

(2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24(3), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016950

25.

Sels

Galdiolo

Gaugue

Geonet

Verhelst

Chiarolanza

Randall

A. K.

Verhofstadt

L. L.

(2022). Intimate relationships in times of COVID-19: A descriptive study of Belgian partners and their perceived well-being. Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1088

26.

Sillars

Shellen

McIntosh

Pomegranate

(1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of Communication, 61(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319709374587

27.

Simmons

R. A.

Gordon

P. C.

Chambless

D. L.

(2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychological Science, 16(12), 932–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01639.x

28.

Singer

J. A.

Labunko

Alea

Baddeley

J. L.

(2015). Mutuality and the marital engagement - Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical support for a clinical instrument in couples therapy. In Skerrett

Fergus

(Eds.), Couple resilience (pp. 123–138). Springer Science and Business Media.

29.

Slatcher

R. B.

Vazire

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00207.x

30.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized test analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

31.

Tian

Kim

Solomon

D. H.

(2021). The effects of type of pronouns and hope appeals in supportive messages about COVID-19. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(5–6), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211044721