THE FIRST SIGHT OF LOVE: VIVID MEMORIES OF THE FIRST ENCOUNTER

By

Renee Ruth Sanders

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Program in the Department of Psychology.

Approved by:

______________________________

Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Nicole Alea

Examining Committee:

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

______________________________

Department Chair: Dr. Mark Galizio

_________________________________

Honors Council Representative

__________________________________

Director of the Honors Scholars Program

The University of North Carolina Wilmington

Wilmington, North Carolina

May 2007

Abstract

The social-bonding function of autobiographical memory was examined in the current study. Two-hundred and eighty-nine married individuals completed a questionnaire to assess marital satisfaction, wrote out an autobiographical memory of their first encounter with their spouse (i.e., first time they met), and self-reported the vividness of the memory. Vividness was assessed with three categories: reliving the vividness of the event (experiencing as though one is reliving the event or traveling back in time to when it occurred), detailed vividness (seeing, hearing, and knowing the setting of the event in one’s mind), and emotional vividness of the event (feeling the same particular emotions with the same intensity as when the event first occurred). Positive correlations existed between reliving the vividness of the event and marital satisfaction, and between emotional vividness of the event and marital satisfaction. Results held when partial correlations were conducted to control for variables such as age, gender, and relationship characteristics. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for enhancing marital relations by remembering significant relationship events.

The First Sight of Love: Vivid Memories of the First Encounter

Suzie’s parents are getting a divorce. Todd’s parents are separated. Brenda is a divorcee looking to meet someone new. These phrases are overwhelmingly familiar in today’s society, especially considering that almost one million divorces were granted in the United States in 2000 alone (Kreider & Fields, 2001). The words “divorce” and “separation” have become commonplace. A young couple marrying for the first time today has a lifetime divorce risk of 40% (Stanley, 1997). Research is often aimed at trying to identify factors that lead to divorce. A lack of communication, hostility, disagreements about money, and marital unfaithfulness are all factors which have been and continue to be extensively studied (see Rogge, 2006 for a review). Little research, however, has examined those factors that bond or keep marriages together.

The current project aims to examine one factor that may help keep couple’s satisfied in their marriage: the memories that a person has about the significant events in their relationship. One especially significant and unique relationship event that a person often recalls is when they first met their spouse or noticed the first sight of love. Thus, the current project aims to examine whether autobiographical memory about these first encounter events is related to marital satisfaction. In the following sections, work on the social-bonding function of autobiographical memory is described and given as a theoretical foundation for why autobiographical memory may be related to marital satisfaction. The second section reviews why the current study examines first encounter autobiographical memories in particular. The final section describes why the vividness of first encounter autobiographical memories is a memory quality that is vital when examining the relation with marital satisfaction.

Theoretical Foundation: Social-bonding Function of Autobiographical Memory

Autobiographical memory is defined as “a memory for an event from your personal past” (Talarico, LaBar, & Rubin, 2004, p.1121). It is usually a memory of a specific, datable event that an individual was personally involved in. These memories can range in topic from trivial memories to memories that are important enough to be included in a person’s life story (Bluck & Habermas, 2000) and usually include details about a plot, a setting, and characters. However, not all of these details need to be present in each individual autobiographical memory (Talarico, et al., 2004), as there is variability in how vividly events are recalled. The majority of autobiographical memory research has focused on “how” people remember life events, such as “how” memories are encoded and retrieved. Recent research, however, has begun to focus on “why” people remember life events, taking a more functional approach to understanding autobiographical memory (Bruce, 1991). The functional approach aims to identify the adaptive uses of autobiographical memory (Cohen, 1998). That is, why is it useful for humans to remember so many of the events that occur throughout their lives?

Autobiographical memory theoretically serves three functions or uses in daily life: self, directive, and social functions (Pillemer, 1992). The self function of autobiographical memory aims at maintaining the continuity of the self over time. It emphasizes the importance on both an emotional and psychological level of recalling one’s past to define oneself (Neisser, 1988). The directive function of autobiographical memory focuses on using the past to solve problems and make plans in the present, and to guide (i.e. direct) one’s future (Cohen, 1989, 1998). Though the self and directive functions of autobiographical memory are likely important for individual development, it is the social function that is most relevant to relationships, and thus is the focus of the present study.

The social function of autobiographical memory has been identified by many researchers as the most fundamental and important function (Bluck & Alea, 2002; Neisser 1988). The social function of autobiographical memory thus seems most relevant when examining what keeps married people satisfied. The social function is divided into three subcategories: social interaction, empathy, and social bonding (Alea & Bluck, 2002). Autobiographical memories are used for social interaction by providing material for conversation (Cohen, 1998). Autobiographical memories are also used for empathic reasons, as sharing one’s life experiences often allows an individual to better understand and empathize with another’s situation.

Although these two social functions of autobiographical memory (i.e., interaction and empathy) are likely used by couples on a daily basis (i.e., couple’s share autobiographical memories about the days events over dinner) and during tough times (i.e., to empathize), the current project focuses on the social function that may be most relevant to maintaining marital satisfaction. Autobiographical memory has been repeatedly noted for its importance in developing, maintaining, and strengthening social bonds (e.g. Nelson, 1993; Pillemer, 1998). The social-bonding function of autobiographical memory can be achieved in a number of ways. First, by sharing an autobiographical memory with someone who was not present during the event, the sharer is providing the listener with information about the sharers’ life and their world, and a relationship may develop. Second, autobiographical memories can be shared with someone who was present at the time of the event. The joint reminiscing helps to increase the bond between the sharer and listener because of the shared past history, and a relationship bond may be maintained or strengthened (Fivush, Haden, & Reese, 1996). Remembering in solitude (as opposed to sharing publicly) can also promote social-bonding between the individual remembering and the individuals being remembered. Simply reminiscing about someone else can strengthen social bonds (Alea & Bluck, 2007). The present study examines whether memories about a specific event, a person’s memory about their first encounter with their spouse, serves a social-bonding function (i.e., is related to marital satisfaction) for the person remembering.

First Encounter Memory

Belove (1980) identified a specific type of memory that may serve a social-bonding function, called the First Encounters of the Close Kind (FECK) memory. Belove states that most married couples recall a single, selected moment which in its visual qualities and specificity has many of the characteristics of an early childhood recollection (i.e. is vividly remembered). Even when questioned separately, partners often produce the same moment as the topic of the recollection. It is almost as if some unspoken agreement exists between them about the significance of that moment, perhaps as if the shared recollection defined for them in metaphor the nature of their current relationship. These memories are early recollections of what was seen, heard, and spoken during a first encounter (e.g. sighting their future spouse for the first time at a dinner party and the conversation which followed). They are selective memories: one brief, but telling moment is seized and cherished from the uncountable moments which pass in the first days or hours of developing a relationship. Belove suggests that first encounter memories serve a unique bonding role in marital relationships and enable couples to characterize the main themes of their marriage and understand their relationship in greater depth. These memories seem to capture the expectations and remembrances of a marriage in a living story, actively remembered, as if the partners were saying to themselves and each other, “For as far back as we can remember this is how things were between us and this is probably how they will be” (Belove, 1980, p. 196). One example of a first encounter memory from Belove’s work is:

“We were just at a club meeting. It was usual for boys to accompany some of the girl’s home by car or by walking them home. Somehow R. (name of husband not used) and I started walking home. I remember that it was dark out, but not too dark-you could still see quite a ways down the street. Some leaves had fallen. I didn’t have warm enough clothes on, and I was shivering a little wishing I had warmer clothes. I did most of the talking. I remember him walking me to the door” (p. 201).

Although theoretical speculation exists that first encounter memories serve a function in the marriage (i.e., a social-bonding function) and are of a particular quality (i.e. highly vivid), there is no known data clearly linking these two constructs. Does one need to be able to vividly remember the event: relive the situation, see and hear the experience in their mind, or feel the same emotions in order for the memory of their first encounter to bond an individual with their spouse? The current study is the first empirical attempt to address this question by linking the vividness of first encounter memories with marital satisfaction.

Vividness of Autobiographical Memory

One quality of autobiographical memory which has been given considerable attention in the autobiographical memory literature is the vividness of memory. In order for a memory to be defined as “vivid” it must be “felt with the freshness or newness of immediate experience” (American Heritage, 2000). Similarly, autobiographical memory researchers define vividness as a reliving of details and emotions of an event (Pillemer, 1998). Thus according to theoretical work, vividness includes: the reliving of an experience, detail orientation, and emotional reoccurrence. Research has shown that individuals have vivid memories, composed of great detail and affect, for personally meaningful events (see Alea & Bluck, 2003 for a review). The vividness of memory has been shown to distinguish between remembered and imagined events (Larsen, 1998), and between consequential and less salient events in people’s lives (Talarico, et al., 2004). However, the question relevant to the current study is whether the vividness of a particularly meaningful autobiographical memory, the first encounter memory, serves a social-bonding function (i.e. is related to marital satisfaction).

Only one known study has examined the relation between autobiographical memory and marital satisfaction. Alea and Bluck’s (2007) study experimentally examined whether autobiographical memories serve to promote social bonding in romantic relationships. Marital satisfaction was measured both before and after individuals recalled autobiographical memories about positive relationship events (as compared to a control event). The study found that remembering relationship events increased marital satisfaction, and most relevant to the current study, that how personally-significant the memory was (which included how vivid it was) predicted the extent to which relationship satisfaction was enhanced. The current study thus draws on and extends this work to examine the vividness of not just positive relationship events, but perhaps one of the most salient memories that a person has about their marital relationship: the first encounter memory.

Hypothesis

The goal of the present study is to examine the vividness of a person’s memory of their first encounter with their spouse in order to determine whether a correlation exists between vividness of the first encounter memory and marital satisfaction. Several aspects of vividness will be examined: reliving the vividness of the event, detailed vividness, and emotional vividness. The hypothesis is that there will be a positive correlation between the vividness of first encounter memories and current marital satisfaction. Such that, the more a person relives, remembers details, and recalls emotion vividly, the higher their marital satisfaction.

Methods

Participants

A total of 289 participants completed the online research survey. Criteria for the present study required participants to have been married for a minimum of two years. This length of time criteria was used to account for the curvilinear trend in marital satisfaction: marital satisfaction is high in newlyweds, decreases during the first decade, levels off in the second decade, and increases again in the later years of a marriage (e.g., Gilford & Bengtson, 1979; McNulty & Karney, 2001). As is often the case, individuals are very happy at the start of a close relationship. Most newlyweds tend to report very high levels of satisfaction and optimism about the future (McNulty & Karney, 2000). Thus, having the two-year marriage criterion in the present study allowed for a more accurate and steadfast lifespan depiction of marital satisfaction. The average length of marriage of participants in the present study was 20.44 years (SD = 12.81) and ranged from 2 years to 61 years. Seventy-four percent of participants in the study reported that their current relationship was their first marriage. Eighty-seven percent of participants had children.

Participant background information. Participant background information showed that 58% of the sample was female, 34% was male, and 7% chose to not disclose their gender. The participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 85 with the average age being 47.19 (SD = 12.32). When asked to rate their health compared to other people their age, on a Likert scale from one (very poor) to six (very good), participants average rating was a 5.06 (SD = .87; Maddox, 1962). Ninety percent of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian, two percent as African-American, three percent as Hispanic, one percent as Asian or Pacific Islander, less that one percent as American Indian and one percent selected “other” when asked which race or ethnic group they most closely associated themselves with.

Participants had a range of education levels. Twenty-eight percent listed graduate or professional school as their highest level of education, 36% had a four-year degree, 19% had received a trade, business, or technical school degree, 16% had a high school diploma and 1% listed grade school as their highest level of education. Sixty-four percent of the participants were employed full-time, 17% were employed part-time, 11% were retired, and 8% were unemployed.

Participants were also asked to rate their computer proficiency on a scale from one (very poor) to five (very good). Participants reported being rather proficient with use of a computer (M = 4.08; SD = .86). Ninety-eight percent of participants also reported feeling comfortable or capable of answering questions on the computer and typing passages.

Recruitment. Recruitment of participants was primarily from an adult psychology participant pool compiled by Dr. Nicole Alea and through an e-mail sent to all faculty and staff members of the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Psychology graduate and undergraduate students of the university were also recruited to complete the survey if they met the criteria or to pass the survey on to eligible friends and family members. Potential research participants were able to assess the survey from an e-mail which contained a brief overview of the study, the estimated time needed to complete the survey, as well as contact information in case of any questions (see Appendix A). If participants then wished to begin the survey, the link, http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=57242799750, was available from the e-mail and those interested could click on the link to be directly connected to the survey.

Measures

Four groups of measures were used in the current study. These include a measure of marital satisfaction, questions about relationship characteristics, a questionnaire to assess the memory vividness of their first encounter memory, and a background questionnaire.

Marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was assessed using the 3-item Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. It is one of the most common and highly reliable questionnaires used to assess marital satisfaction (Schumm, Paff-Bergen, Hatch, Obiorah, Meens, & Bugaighis, 1986). It assesses, on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 being extremely dissatisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied), the extent to which couples are satisfied with their marriage, with their husband or wife as a spouse, and in their relationship with their husband or wife. Chronbach’s alpha for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale in the current study was .97.

Relationship characteristics. Relationship characteristics were assessed using three general questions. First, participants were asked to type a numerical response to the question, “How long have you been in your current marriage?” Second, participants were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to the question, “Is this your first marriage?” The third question asked if participants had any children. Information about these relationship characteristics was collected in order to account for the length of marriage which may influence marital satisfaction (i.e. because of the curvilinear pattern), and data which suggests that marital satisfaction is lowest throughout the years children are present in the home (Gilford & Bengtson, 1979). It also seemed possible that the relationship between vividness of memories and marital satisfaction may vary depending on the whether someone was in their first marriage or not. These relationship characteristics were thus considered as potential confounds and are explored in the analyses.

Memory vividness. Memory vividness was measured using a portion of the Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (Talarico, et al., 2004) which assesses self-reported qualities of memory. The questionnaire contains 22 questions aimed at assessing a wide range of memory qualities such as valence, recall, and emotional arousal. Seven items assessing memory vividness were used in the current study and these seven items were divided into three categories of vividness: reliving the vividness of the event, detailed vividness, and emotional vividness (based on Talarico, et al, 2004).

Two questions were related to reliving the vividness of an event. The first question asked, “While remembering the event, I feel as though I am reliving it.” Responses were made on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 being not at all and 7 being as clearly as if it were happening now. The second question asked, “While remembering the event, I feel that I travel back to the time when it happened.” with responses made on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 being not at all and 7 being completely. Chronbach’s alpha for the reliving the vividness of the event questions was .80.

Three questions were used to assess detailed vividness. Responses to each of the three questions were made on 7-point Likert scales with 1 being not at all and 7 being as clearly as if it were happening now. The first question asked, “While remembering the event, I can see it in my mind.” The second question asked, “While remembering the event, I can hear it in my mind.” The third question asked, “While remembering the event, I know the setting where it occurred.” Chronbach’s alpha for the detailed vividness questions was .78.

Two questions were related to emotional vividness. The first question asked, “While remembering the event, I feel the same particular emotions I felt at the time of the event.” Responses were made on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 being completely different and 7 being identically the same. The second question asked, “While remembering the event, I feel the emotions as strongly as I did then.” Responses were made on a 7-point Likert scale; 1 was not at all and 7 was as clearly as if it were happening now. Chronbach’s alpha for the emotional vividness questions was .90.

Background questions. Background questions were asked to gather general background information about participants’ health status and to assess computer competency. Background questions included questions about their gender, age, race, education, and employment (adopted from Alea & Bluck, 2007). A health status question was asked to gain an overview of participants overall health status, compared to others their age (Maddox, 1962). Computer competency questions were included to assess participants’ basic knowledge and comfort level with using a computer. Participants were asked two computer proficiency questions. First they were asked to respond yes or no to the question, “Do you feel comfortable or capable of answering questions on a computer, navigating the computer by using a mouse, and typing passages?” Second, they were asked to rate their proficiency with using a computer as either very poor, poor, adequate, good, or very good. These two questions were administered in order to assure that participants were comfortable using a computer, and thus responses to questions were due to participants’ recollections as opposed to a discomfort with the use of the computer.

Materials

Each participant used a computer with internet access to complete the online survey. Participants were given access to the survey via a link which could be used from any computer. Therefore, the model of computers used in the current data collection varied. The research team purchased a short-term professional subscription to the user-friendly online data collection software and database, Surveymonkey. This online software collects and stores data. It also offers a wide variety of features such as unlimited number of questions per survey, conditional logic (which automatically skips non-applicable questions), required answer capability which keeps participants from continuing until certain designated questions have been answered, and after the study is complete, downloading data to statistical programs. Surveymonkey.com is a secure website which has met the Safe Harbor requirements for security. As an extra measure of security, the research team also paid an additional fee for SSL encryption.

Procedure

Data for the present study was collected as part of a larger study. Data collection took place from November 2006 to February 2007. The interview script relevant to the current project is in Appendix B (portions grayed-out were not used in the current study). Only the procedures relevant to the current study are described below. The procedures are divided into two sections: preliminary procedures and study procedures.

Preliminary procedures. Preliminary procedures included four different sections: basic information pertaining to the survey setup and honor code, relationship screening questions, and the informed consent. Upon clicking on the survey link, individuals were taken to the first page of the survey which thanked them for their interest in participating. It also explained that each page of the survey contained a box at the bottom of the page labeled “SUBMIT.” Clicking on this button would move the participant to the next page of the survey.

After participants clicked submit on the initial page, they were taken to the honor code page. On this page, participants were asked to check “yes” or “no” to two questions. The first question asked participants to “agree to respond to all questions and tasks honestly and to the best of their ability.” The second question stated, “I have moved all items that could potentially assist me with this study, and I will not use them or the assistance of others while I am a participant in this study.” If participants submitted “no” to either of the two questions, they were directed to a survey exit screen. This screen thanked them for their time and asked them if they would be willing to participate in other studies in the future, but informed them that they would not be able to continue in the current survey. If participants submitted “yes” to both of these questions they were directed to the pre-screening questions.

To ensure that only participants that met criteria continued on with the survey, there was initial relationship screening criteria questions. The first question asked participants to identify their current relationship status (e.g. married, single, etc.) and only those individuals that answered “married” moved on to the next question. The second question asked whether they had been in their current relationship for a minimum of two years. If participants had not been married for at least two years, they were sent to the survey exit screen. Participants meeting the two year minimum requirement moved on to the final preliminary procedure page, the informed consent.

Informed consent is one of the most important ethical components of a research study. As the current study was conducted online, the informed consent process was slightly different than usual, and included additional safeguards. As typical, the informed consent gave participants all the information necessary to make an informed decision about study participation. The first safeguard asked participants to read the research participant statement and either agree or disagree. The statement read, “Typing my name and providing my contact information in the blanks below means that I understand that my participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. I may refuse to participate without penalty or loss of benefits. I may stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. I also understand that the contact information given below is confidential and will only be used by the research team, for research purposes.” After these instructions there was a box with the statement “I give my consent to participate in the research study, and agree to the above statement.” If a participant checked “no,” they were directed to the survey exit screen. If a participant checked “yes,” they moved on to the second safeguard. For this, participants provided their contact information as a further means of agreeing that they understood their rights as a participant; it served as a proxy for their signature. After the informed consent page, participants were directed to the last page of preliminary procedures, the computer competency questions.

Study procedures. Study procedures began with participants completing the relationship characteristics questionnaire followed by the marital satisfaction questionnaire. After completing these two questionnaires, participants were directed to the autobiographical memory portion of the survey.

The memory portion of the survey asked participants to reflect on and write about their memory of their first encounter with their spouse. Participants were told that, “many couples have a story that they share about their first encounter.” To elicit this memory, several clarifications were given in the remaining instructions. Based on Belove’s (1980) work on first encounter memories, participants were told that the first encounter memories often have the following three attributes:

“First, it is a memory from early in the relationship, either the first time you met your spouse, or when you saw the first glimmer of or potential for lasting love (i.e., sparks flew or you realized that they were “the one”). Second, it is the memory that you might tell someone else if that person asked about how the relationship started, or how you met your spouse. It is not the full story of the early part of the relationship, but a specific moment which suggests that this is the beginning of “your story” as a couple. Lastly, it is a memory that you think about, is familiar to you, and is likely to also be familiar to your spouse. It is probably the memory that your spouse would share as their first encounter experience with you.”

An additional clarification was given based on the self-defining memory literature (Singer, 2004), as it seemed that a first encounter memory is a relationship-defining memory. The instructions thus provided clarity about the need for the memory to be a defining moment in the relationship, “It is a memory for a specific moment or event that is very clear and stands out in your mind. It probably still feels important to you even as you think about it, and it may lead to strong feelings.”

Participants were asked to write about their first encounter memory with the directions, “In the space provided below, please write about the memory you have for your first encounter with your spouse. Please be as specific as possible, including as many details as you can remember. Make sure to address: WHAT happened, WHO was there, WHERE it was, and WHEN it happened.” These directions are standard in the autobiographical memory literature (e.g., Alea & Bluck, 2007). Participants were given a large text box which would expand as they typed. In order to gather a complete account of the memory, the directions also stated, “To include all of this information, it will likely take more than just a few sentences.” An example of a first encounter memory can be seen in Table 1.

Immediately after writing their first encounter memory, participants were asked to complete the memory vividness questionnaire about the memory of their first encounter. Participants were asked to answer the background questions and health questions at the end of the survey. The survey ended with participants again being shown contact information, in case they had any questions or comments regarding the study. They were thanked for their participation.

Results

The results from the present study are described in three sections. The first section presents descriptive statistics to examine the mean-level of marital satisfaction and vividness of first encounter memories, as well as correlations among the three vividness measures. The second section addresses the major study aim by examining the correlations between the vividness of a person’s autobiographical memory about their first encounter and marital satisfaction. The third section examines whether the relations between vividness and marital satisfaction hold when controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, gender, and relationship characteristics (i.e., length of marriage, presence of children).

Descriptive Statistics for Marital Satisfaction and Memory Vividness

Descriptive statistics include means and standard deviations for marital satisfaction, as well as the three vividness categories for the first encounter memories: reliving vividness, detailed vividness, and emotion vividness. Descriptive statistics for the memory vividness variables are reported in Table 2.

Participants reported being somewhat satisfied to very satisfied in their marital relationship (M = 5.87; SD = 1.28). There was a range however in marital satisfaction, from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7) Thus, although participants in the study, for the most part, were relatively satisfied in their marriages, there was variability.

The mean level of reliving the vividness of the event was 5.49 (SD = 1.40). Thus, participants did not feel as though they were reliving the event as clearly as if it were happening now but they did distinctly feel as though they were reliving the event. A sense of reliving ranged from not at all (1) to as clearly as if it were happening now (7).

The mean level of detailed vividness was a 5.68 (SD = 1.23), indicating that participants felt as though they were as clearly as if it were happening now or distinctly seeing, hearing and knowing the setting features of their first encounter memory in their mind. Detailed vividness ranged from not at all (1) to as clearly as if it were happening now (7).

Emotional vividness also had a range from not at all (1) to as clearly as if it were happening now (7) with an average of 5.15 (SD = 1.62). Thus, participants distinctly felt the emotions as strongly as they did at the time the event occurred. Overall, participants first encounter memories were fairly vivid. The memories were considered to be high in reliving vividness of the event, filled with details about the event, and emotionally vivid.

Correlational analyses show that the three vividness categories were related, as would also be expected. Reliving the vividness of the event was correlated with detailed vividness, r (287) = .76, p < .01. The more individuals reported reliving the event or traveling back in time to when the event occurred, the more likely they were to also report being able to see and hear the event and know the setting details.

Reliving the vividness of the event was also correlated with emotional vividness, r (287) = .69, p < .01. The more participants relived the event during recall, the more likely they were to also feel the same particular emotions as strongly as they felt them at the time the event occurred.

Detailed vividness was also correlated with emotional vividness, r (287) = .61, p < .01. Participants who were more likely to report being able to see, hear, and know the setting of the event were also more likely to report feeling the same emotion with equal intensity as when the event occurred. Thus, the three vividness variables were highly related, so that first encounter memories that were rich in vividness, seemed to be vivid across all categories of vividness.

Correlations between Vividness of First Encounter Memory and Marital Satisfaction

Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relation between the vividness of a person’s autobiographical memory about their first encounter with their spouse and their marital satisfaction. The relations were examined separately for the three categories of vividness (i.e., reliving the vividness of the event, detailed vividness, and emotional vividness.)

Reliving the vividness of the event was positively correlated with marital satisfaction, r (287) = .22, p < .01. This suggests that as reliving vividness scores increased, marital satisfaction scores also increased (see Figure 1). Thus, individuals who reported feeling as though they were reliving the event and traveling back to the time when it occurred reported higher marital satisfaction.

Detailed vividness was not significantly correlated with marital satisfaction, r (287) = .11, p > .01. Thus, being able to see and hear the details or the setting features of a first encounter memory was not related to marital satisfaction.

Emotional vividness was correlated with marital satisfaction, r (287) =.33, p < .01. The higher the level of emotional vividness in a person’s first encounter memory, the higher their marital satisfaction (see Figure 2). Thus, individuals who reported feeling the same emotion at the time of the recall of their first encounter memory and felt those emotions as strongly reported higher marital satisfaction.

Higher levels of reliving the vividness of the event and of emotional vividness of first encounter memories was related to higher marital satisfaction. The strongest relation was for emotional vividness. Higher levels of detailed vividness, however, did not correlate with marital satisfaction.

Partial Correlations to Examine Personal Characteristics and Relationship Confounds

Partial correlational analyses were conducted to examine whether the relations between the vividness of first encounter memories and marital satisfaction remained the same or changed, controlling for variables that could be potential confounds. Variables examined can be divided into two categories. The first category involves personal characteristic variables, such as age and gender. Both of these personal characteristics may influence marital satisfaction or how someone remembers life events (Ross & Holmberg, 1992; Anderson, Cohen, & Taylor, 2000). The second category includes relationship characteristics, such as length of the marriage and the presence of children (McNulty & Karney, 2001). Correlations between marital satisfaction and vividness, and the personal characteristics and relationship characteristics are reported in Table 3.

Controlling for personal characteristics and relationship characteristics did not change the previously significant correlations between reliving the vividness of an event and marital satisfaction. Reliving vividness and marital satisfaction continued to be correlated when age was controlled, r (287) = .26, p < .01, and when gender was controlled, r (287) = .28, p < .01. Reliving vividness and marital satisfaction were also correlated when relationship length was controlled, r (287) = .23, p < .01 and when the presence of children was controlled, r (287) = .21, p < .01. Thus, the correlation between reliving the vividness of the event and marital satisfaction is not affected by personal characteristics and relationship variables.

Although there was not a significant correlation between detailed vividness and marital satisfaction, partial correlations were conducted to be consistent across vividness measures and because sometimes nonsignificant correlations become significant when confounding variables are controlled (Sani, Schott, & Todman, 2006). The correlation between detailed vividness and marital satisfaction remained nonsignificant when age, r (287) = .11, p > .01, gender, r (287) = .12, p > .01, relationship length, r (287) = .12, p > .01, and presence of children was controlled, r (287) = .11, p > .01. Thus, detailed vividness (i.e. seeing, hearing, and knowing the setting of the event) does not seem to be related to marital satisfaction, even when a participant’s age, gender, length of the relationship, and presence of children are considered.

Positive significant correlations held between emotional vividness and marital satisfaction when age was controlled, r (287) = .31, p < .01, and when gender was controlled, r (287) = .31, p < .01. Correlations also held when relationship length was controlled, r (287) = .34, p < .01 and when the presence of children was controlled, r (287) = .33, p < .01. Thus, indicating that correlations between emotional vividness and marital satisfaction exist regardless of age, gender, length of marriage, and presence of children.

Discussion

The present study has just begun to bridge the psychological literature of two areas: work on autobiographical memory and work on relationship satisfaction. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the vividness of an autobiographical memory about an individuals’ first encounter with their spouse was related to marital satisfaction. The study is the first to examine the theoretical link between the vividness of first encounter memories and marital satisfaction, and find empirical support. The study extends the experimental work on social bonding in romantic relations conducted by Alea and Bluck (2007) by demonstrating that a particular type of relationship memory, the first encounter memory, can serve to promote social bonding in romantic relationships. The study also extends work conducted on the vividness of a significant relationship memory by examining three categories of vividness (reliving the vividness of the event, detailed vividness, and emotional vividness) in first encounter autobiographical memories. The discussion of the present study is described in four sections which follow. The first section broadly discusses the vividness of the first encounter memories. The second section discusses the relations between reliving the vividness of the event, emotional vividness of the first counter memory, and marital satisfaction. The third section examines the relation between detailed vividness of the first encounter memory and marital satisfaction and the possible reasons why a correlation was not found between the two. The section points out the limitations of the study and suggests future directions for research. The final section proposes implications of the findings for clinical work.

First Encounter Memories are Vivid

Results from the current study are the first to show that first encounter memories are vivid. It was found that for people relatively satisfied in their marriage (as were the participants in the current study), their first encounter memories were, on average, rich with vividness about reliving the event, details of the event, and emotions associated with the event. It was also found that if a first encounter memory is vivid in one category (i.e., reliving), it will tend to be vivid in others as well (i.e., emotional vividness). If an individual feels as though they are traveling back in time and actually reliving the event, they are also likely to remember the details of the event (i.e. the way the restaurant looked and what their date was saying), and feel the intense and similar emotions that they felt at the time of the event (i.e. feelings of joy and excitement over the future).

Thus, results confirm Belove’s (1980) ideas that first encounter memories are rich in vividness. It also extends his ideas to show that these memories are rich in vividness of many sorts. These memories are full of recollections about the feeling of going back to the event, seeing the setting the events took place in and what the person was wearing, and feeling those same emotions that were felt then. From the current study, we know not only that these first encounter memories are vivid, but also that they are most vivid in detail followed closely by reliving vividness and then emotional vividness.

Vividness of First Encounter Memories is Related to Marital Satisfaction

As was hypothesized at the beginning of the study, positive correlations existed between the vividness of the first encounter memory and marital satisfaction. The relation, however, was for some of the vividness categories (i.e., emotional and reliving the vividness of the event), and not all (i.e., detailed vividness). The strongest positive correlation existed between the emotional vividness of first encounter memories and marital satisfaction (i.e., an individual reporting feeling intense emotions similar to those experienced at the time of the event tended to be highly satisfied in their marriage). A positive correlation also existed between reliving the vividness of the event and marital satisfaction. Thus, the more a person re-experiences or relives the first encounter memory, the higher their marital satisfaction. These correlations held even when controlling for personal characteristics (i.e., age and gender) and relationship characteristics (i.e., length of marriage, and presence of children) that are related to marital satisfaction and vividness (Ross, et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 2000; McNulty et al., 2001).

The study confirms what researchers have found in recent studies that take a functional approach to understanding autobiographical memory. Autobiographical memory plays a key role in social-bonding (Alea & Bluck, 2003). The current study is the first to find support for the social-bonding function (Neisser, 1988; Cohen, 1998; Pillemer, 1992) of first encounter autobiographical memories, by demonstrating a relation between the emotional and reliving vividness of these memories and marital satisfaction. As the current study demonstrates, not just any first encounter memory will serve this social-bonding fuction. It is necessary that the memory be of a particular quality: emotionally rich with an experience of reliving the event. The current findings also coincide with other work in the autobiographical memory literature. Events that are more emotional tend to be more vivid, and increase the likelihood of remembering the event (Kensinger & Corkin, 2003). Emotional vividness as well as reliving vividness enhances memory not just at the point of recall but also at different phases of processing, including encoding, memory retention, and retrieval (Sharot, 2006). Thus, the same memory qualities that apply to “how” people remember also seem to be related to “why” people remember (Bruce, 1991). These vividness qualities of memories help serve the social-bonding function in autobiographical memory.

Although it was hypothesized that the detailed vividness of first encounter memories would increase as marital satisfaction increased, the findings of this study did not support this hypothesis. Detailed vividness was not correlated with marital satisfaction. In examining possible methodological explanations for why detailed vividness was not correlated with marital satisfaction, few reasons were found. Detailed vividness had the highest mean score of the three vividness variables, thus participants’ first encounter memories were detailed. Further, the mean, standard deviation, and Chronbach’s alpha for detailed vividness was similar to the other categories of vividness, insinuating that a methodological error or ceiling effect is not likely a factor in the findings. Participants reported being able to see, hear, and know the setting of the first encounter memory distinctly regardless of their age, gender, relationship length, or presence of children.

There may however be conceptual reasons for why remembering the details of a first encounter memory is not related to marital satisfaction. It might be that although remembering details vividly (i.e. the details about what a person saw or heard) is a salient quality of many different types of autobiographical memories, such as flashbulb memories (Morley, 1993), childhood memories (Tylenda & Dollinger, 1987), and post traumatic stress recollections (Speckens, Ehlers, Hackmann, & Clark, 2006), it does not seem to be a memory quality that is related to marital satisfaction. Thus, remembering exactly what a restaurant looked like or what someone was wearing or saying does not seem to be as important for the social-bonding function of autobiographical memory as reliving the event during recall and re-experiencing the emotions. The current study results provide support for the social-function of autobiographical memory and also some clarifications about the qualities of memories that are vital: the need for reliving the vividness of the event as well as emotional vividness.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has two major limitations. The first major limitation is that the study is a correlational design and thus problems of directionality and the presence of possible third or confounding variables (i.e., situational or memory confounds) must be addressed (Sani, et al., 2006). The problem of directionality means that in a study with a correlational design causation or directionality cannot be examined. That is, although theory suggests that autobiographical memories serve a social-bonding function (Neisser, 1988; Cohen, 1998, Pillemer, 1992), in that memories predict marital satisfaction, the relation may likely go in the other direction. Theory says that autobiographical memory helps to predict marital satisfaction, but it might also be that those individuals who have higher marital satisfaction, simply recall first encounter memories more vividly. In order to fully understand the direction of the results found in the current the study, future experimental research is needed.

The third or confounding variable problem arises in correlational research designs because an unknown third, unmeasured variable may be influencing the two variables in the correlation (i.e., related to vividness of the first encounter memory and marital satisfaction) and thus it creates an appearance of a relation where one does not exist. Situational confounds that may be influencing marital satisfaction in the current study might include a quarrel that the participant had with their spouse that occurred immediately before the participant completed the questionnaire (Cui, 1995) or more seriously, the loss of a loved one recently which has added strain to the marital relationship (Vance, Boyle, Najman, & Thearle, 2002). There may also be memory confounds that may be influencing recollection of the memory and its vividness. These confounds include such variables as the age of the memory and rehearsal of the event. For example a participant who has recalled their first encounter memory just previous to completing the survey (i.e., told it to a friend last night), would have a fresher and well-rehearsed recollection of the event. Research shows that well-rehearsed memories are more vivid (Anderson, et al., 2000), which is why future research needs to examine other memory qualities to control for these possible confounds.

The second major limitation of the study is the methodology used to collect the data: online data collection. As the study was conducted online and without face-to-face contact with an interviewer, it is possible that responses were different than they might have been with an in-person interview session. A recent study explored issues surrounding the use of internet-based methodologies (Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005). It found that for some questions there are very similar responses between online data collection and face-to-face data collection, but that for other questions responses were very different. The authors suspected that the differences were due to problems that arise during face-to-face interviews, such as social desirability bias and interviewer bias, and thus the anonymity may be a strength of online data collection. Online data collection does seem to be more appealing to more educated and active individuals (Duffy, et al., 2005), which could bias the sample, but it also allows for data collection from hard to reach groups (i.e., middle-aged adults). Future research is needed to examine whether the relations between the vividness of first encounter memories and marital satisfaction would exist with in-person data collection methods.

There are a variety of directions for future research. These include further research on the effects of first encounter autobiographical memory recall and relationship satisfaction of other types of relationships such as close friendships and family relationships would also be beneficial(i.e., when you first met your best friend). Findings from the present study could very likely be found in a wide variety of other relationships.

Another direction for possible future research involves examining individuals with lower marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction in the present study was reported as being relatively high and it is possible that findings would have been different in individuals less satisfied in their marriages. Future research is necessary in order to examine the reported levels of vividness in individuals less satisfied in their marriages.

Implications

Findings from the present study have the potential to be very useful in practice for clinical, counseling, and social work with couples. Belove (1980) suggested that the use of first encounter recollections in therapeutic situations could help couples begin dialogue and easily move into discussions on the fundamental issues of a marriage (Belove, 1980). In Adlerian marriage counseling (Pew & Pew, 1972), shared recollections of first encounter memories are currently being used in order to provide couples and therapists with insight into individual convictions and as well as satisfaction issues in the present relationship (Rotter & Cretzmeyer, 1998). However, now knowing the correlation between reliving and emotional vividness of events and marital satisfaction could change many of the techniques used in these therapy sessions. Techniques aimed at encouraging the patient to relive the event as much as possible and allow the emotional vividness of the time to flourish could easily become implemented into therapy as a means of increasing social-bonding and marital satisfaction.

Having a better understanding of what qualities of autobiographical memory serve a social-bonding function (Alea & Bluck, 2003; Alea & Bluck 2007) has the potential to be influential to not just psychology, but also a variety of fields. For example, in political science, knowing that reliving and emotional vividness are highly correlated to social-bonding, could influence the way politicians meet with voters (i.e., tell vivid stories to bond with them) or write their speeches. In literature, this understanding might influence the way an author writes about the vividness of a scene to connect with the reader. The implications of the current study, though most directly related to marital therapy, are not limited only to marital therapy and may be broad-reaching.

Conclusion: Remember the First Sight of Love Vividly

Belove (1980) was one of the first to begin to consider first encounter autobiographical memories as being beneficial in social-bonding. It seems clear that for enhanced social-bonding between married couples, they should look back to the “first sight of love” in their relationship. In expanding on this concept, the current study has examined one aspect of these first encounter memories which literature has suggested might foster this social-bonding function and increase marital satisfaction: vividness. In doing so, some important relations have been found which could prove to be especially beneficial for marriage counseling. Reliving the event and feeling intense emotions while recalling the first encounter memory seems to be about more than just bringing a smile back to the remembers face. Remembering the first encounter with a strong sense of reliving and high emotional vividness could lead to not just the “first sight” of love but actually a “renewal of love” and enhance in marital satisfaction.

References

Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptual model of the

social function of autobiographical memory. Memory, 11(2), 165-178.

Alea, N. & Bluck, S. (2002). Exploring the functions of autobiographical memory: Why

do I remember the autumn? In J.D. Webster, B.K. Haight (Eds.), Critical advances in reminiscence work: From theory to application (pp.61-75). Springer Publication Company.

Anderson, S.J., Cohen, G., Taylor, S. (2000). Rewriting the past: Some factors affecting

the variability of personal memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 435-454.

Belove, L. (1980). First encounter of the close kind (FECK): the use of the story of the

first interaction as an early recollection of a marriage. Journal of Individual Psychology, 32(2), 191-208.

Bluck, S., &Habermas, T. (2000). The life story schema. Motivation and Emotion, 24,

pp. 121-147.

Bruce, D. (1991). Mechanistic and functional explanations of memory. American

Psychologist, 46, 46-48.

Cohen, G. (1998). The effects of aging on autobiographical memory. In C.P. Thompson,

D.J. Herrmann, D. Bruce, D.J. Read, D.G. Payne, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Autobiographical memory; Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 105-123). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Cui, L. (1995) A study of aged couple relationships and influencing factors.

Psychological Science, 18, 221-224.

Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online

and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 615-639.

Fivush, R., Haden, C.A., & Reese, E. (1996). Remembering, recounting, and reminiscing:

The development of autobiographical memory in social context. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Reconstructing our past: An overview of autobiographical memory (pp. 341-359). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gilford, R., & Bengtson, V. (1979). Measuring marital satisfaction in three generations:

Positive and negative dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 387-398.

Kreider, R.M., & Fields, J.M. (2001). Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and

Divorces. US Census Bureau, Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf.

Larsen, S. (1998). Autobiographical memory: theoretical and applied perspectives.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maddox, G. L. (1962). Some correlates of differences in self-assessment of health status

among the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 17, 180-185.

McNulty, J.K., & Karney B.R. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Integrating specific and

global evaluations of a relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943-955.

Morley, S. (1993). Vivid memories for everyday pains. Pain, 55, 55-62.

National Center for Health Statistics, (2004). Marriage and divorce. Retrieved Apr. 10,

2006, from CDC Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.

Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self-knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 35-39.

Nelson, K. (1993). The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory.

Psychological Science, 4, 7-14.

Pew, M.L. & Pew, W.L. (1972). Adlerian marriage counseling. Journal of Individual

Psychology. 28, 192-202.

Pillemer, D.B. (1998). Momentous events, vivid memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Pillemer, D.B. (1992). Remembering personal circumstances; A functional analysis.