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.
AgnewC. R.Van LangeP. A. M.RusbultC. E.LangstonC. 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
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (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
3.
BergC. A.UpchurchR. (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
4.
BloomH. S.RaudenbushS. W.WeissM. J.PorterK. (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
5.
BodenmannG. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In RevensonT. A.KayserK.BodenmannG. (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
6.
BrodardF.CharvozL.AntoniettiJ.-P.RossierJ.BodenmannG.SnyderD. 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
FitzsimonsG. M.KayA. 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
9.
FletcherG. J.FinchamF. D.CramerL.HeronN. (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.
GaldioloS.CulotS.DelannoyP.MauroyA.GaugueJ. (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.
GaldioloS.CulotS.DelannoyP.MauroyA.LaforgueF.GaugueJ. (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.
GaldioloS.RoskamI.VerhofstadtL. L.De MolJ.DewinneL.VandaudenardS. (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.
HinnekensC.LemmensG.VanheeG.VerhofstadtL. (2016). A pronoun analysis of couples’ support transactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00077
14.
KaranA.RosenthalR.RobbinsM. 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.
KrokoffL. J.GottmanJ. M.HassS. 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.
MroczekD. K.SpiroA. (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.
PaulyT.GerstorfD.WahlH.-W.HoppmannC. 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.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
19.
ReidD. W.AhmadS. (2015). Identification with the relationship as essential to marital resilience: Theory, application, and evidence. In SkerrettK.FergusK. (Eds.), Couple resilience (pp. 139–161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_8
20.
SaxbeD. E.BeckesL.StoycosS. A.CoanJ. 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.
SchembriK. (2020). No couple is an island: Communities of support in couple relationships. In AbelaA.VellaS.PiscopoS. (Eds.), Couples relationships in a global context (pp. 391–402). Springer.
22.
SchokkenbroekJ. M.HardynsW.AnrijsS.PonnetK. (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.
SchwarzN.GrovesR. M.SchumanH. (1998). Survey methods. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 143–179). Oxford University Press.
24.
SeiderB. H.HirschbergerG.NelsonK. L.LevensonR. 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.
SelsL.GaldioloS.GaugueJ.GeonetM.VerhelstP.ChiarolanzaC.RandallA. K.VerhofstadtL. 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.
SillarsA.ShellenW.McIntoshA.PomegranateM. (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.
SimmonsR. A.GordonP. C.ChamblessD. 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.
SingerJ. A.LabunkoB.AleaN.BaddeleyJ. L. (2015). Mutuality and the marital engagement - Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical support for a clinical instrument in couples therapy. In SkerrettK.FergusK. (Eds.), Couple resilience (pp. 123–138). Springer Science and Business Media.
29.
SlatcherR. B.VazireS.PennebakerJ. 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.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. 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.
TianX.KimY.SolomonD. 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
