Prediction of union dissolution : verification of a mediational model

(1)

NATHALIE LÉVESQUE

uL

"Loo Su L LL^

PREDICTION OF UNION DISSOLUTION: VERIFICATION OF A

MEDIATIONAL MODEL

Mémoire présenté

à la Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval

pour l’obtention

du grade de maître en psychologie (M.Ps.)

École de Psychologie

FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES SOCIALES UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL

19 décembre 2002

(2)

RÉSUMÉ

La présente recherche porte sur la prédiction de la désunion. L’objectif de cette étude est de vérifier empiriquement la valeur d’un modèle médiationnel de la dissolution d’union. Le style motivationnel et la satisfaction conjugale constituent les variables clés de la présente étude. L’hypothèse proposée stipule que moins une personne affiche une motivation initiale qui tend vers 1 ’ auto-détermination, et moins elle est satisfaite

ultérieurement, plus les risques de désunion sont grands. La vérification de cette hypothèse nécessite le recours à un plan de recherche comportant trois périodes d’observation. L'originalité de cette étude tient au caractère longitudinal du protocole d’expérience. Des analyses de cheminement démontrent que la satisfaction conjugale n’agit pas comme variable médiationnelle dans notre modèle de prédiction de la désunion. De plus, des analyses de survie révèlent que le style motivationnel et la satisfaction conjugale n’agissent pas à titre de prédicteurs de la dissolution d’union.

Stéphane Sabourin, Ph.D.

ü--- -- ——-—- ־״- ״

(3)

Ill

AVANT-PROPOS

Ce mémoire comprend l’insertion d’un seul article. Les auteurs de cet article sont Nathalie Lévesque, étudiante à la maîtrise en psychologie de !’Université Laval et

Stéphane Sabourin, professeur et chercheur en psychologie à l’Université Laval. Nathalie Lévesque est premier auteur et a eu la responsabilité d’écrire l’article en entier ainsi que d’y effectuer les analyses statistiques. Stéphane Sabourin a apporté son jugement critique sur l’article et a proposé des corrections et des pistes à suivre dans l’élaboration de cet article. L’article présenté dans ce mémoire n’a pas été soumis pour publication.

Je tiens à remercier tout spécialement Julie Pelletier pour son aide dans le recrutement des participants pour mon étude. Également, je tiens à souligner l’aide exceptionnelle de Hélène Paradis dans 1 ’accomplissement de mes analyses statistiques. Je remercie mes meilleures amies et ma famille qui ont su si bien m’encourager dans les périodes difficiles. Finalement, je remercie mon directeur de mémoire et mentor en recherche, Stéphane Sabourin, pour son excellent jugement critique et sa qualité d’analyse d’informations scientifiques.

Nathalie Lévesque Plessisville, le 12 décembre 2002

(4)

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Résumé... II Avant-propos... III

Tables des matières... IV Liste des tableaux... V

Listes des figures... VI

Introduction générale... VII Article : Prediction of union dissolution : verification of a mediational model

Theory... 10 Method...17 Results...20 Discussion... 24 References...29 Tables... 34 Figures... 36 Conclusion générale... 38

(5)

V LISTE DES TABLEAUX

Participants’ Characteristics at the beginning of the study... 37 Correlations between couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction at Tableau 1

Tableau 2

38 time 1 and at time 2

(6)

39 LISTE DES FIGURES

Path analysis to develop the mediational model of status prediction... Figure 1

.40 Survival Function

(7)

VII

INTRODUCTION GÉNÉRALE

À la lumière de l’important phénomène que constitue la dissolution d’union, la communauté scientifique s’est penchée sur les déterminants psychosociaux de la détresse conjugale et de là stabilité des relations de couples. Les recherches précédentes ont fait ressortir le rôle du névrotisme, des stratégies interactionnelles et de la satisfaction conjugale (Bradbury, 1998). Aucune recherche ne semble avoir étudié la validité de la motivation à vivre en couple dans la prédiction de la désunion.

Dans le présent contexte, le concept de style motivationnel se définit par la nature des raisons qui amènent les partenaires à former et à maintenir une relation de couple. Les spécialistes en psychologie de la motivation s’entendent pour dire que le caractère intrinsèque ou extrinsèque des motivations sous-jacentes à une action se répercute directement sur la persistance des activités entreprises par l’individu pour atteindre ses objectifs à court, moyen ou long terme. Les chercheurs ont très peu étudié la nature et les répercussions des raisons qui motivent les membres d’un couple à entreprendre et à maintenir une relation à long terme (Jones, 1993). Seulement quelques chercheurs se sont intéressés aux rapports existant entre la motivation et la satisfaction conjugale (Aimé, Sabourin & Valois, 2000; Blais, Boucher, Sabourin & Vallerand, 1990 ; Giguère, Fortin & Sabourin, 1999; Ton & Hansen, 2001). Ces chercheurs ont principalement étudié la validité de la théorie de 1 ’autodétermination de Deci et Ryan (1985, 1991) et les six types de motivation qu’elle propose dans la création d’un modèle motivationnel de la

satisfaction conjugale. De plus, ils ont examiné les styles de motivation comme déterminants de la satisfaction conjugale et l’appariement de ces styles de motivation

(8)

dans la compréhension de l’évolution de la satisfaction conjugale. Par exemple, Ton et Hansen (2001) se sont intéressés à la satisfaction des conjoints en tant que variable médiatrice du lien entre les valeurs des époux et les motivations à vivre ensemble. Par contre, à notre connaissance, aucune recherche longitudinale n’a traité de l’évolution concomitante de la satisfaction et de la motivation conjugale. De plus, aucun chercheur ne semble avoir tenté de développer un modèle de prédiction du statut de l’union à partir du style de motivation et de la satisfaction conjugale. Ce type de construction théorique apparaît d’autant plus important que la dissolution d’union demeure un phénomène démographique répandu et que nos modèles psychosociaux visant à prédire ces ruptures ne sont encore que d’une efficacité partielle (Bradbury, 1998).

Les études transversales précédentes sur le lien entre la satisfaction conjugale et la motivation à vivre en couple ont toutes rapporté l’existence d’un lien fort et significatif entre ces deux concepts (Aimé, et al., 2000, Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt, 1997 ; Blais et al., 1990 ; Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985 ; Seligman, Fazio & Zanna, 1980). Ainsi, plus le type de motivation d'un individu tend vers l'autodétermination, plus il retirera de

satisfaction de sa relation de couple. Par conséquent, moins une personne a une motivation autodéterminée à vivre en couple, moins il sera satisfait de son union.

Notre compréhension de la théorie de 1 ’ autodétermination et des résultats des recherches transversales conduit à la formulation d’une hypothèse selon laquelle moins une personne affiche une motivation qui tend vers 1 ’ autodétermination et moins elle est satisfaite ultérieurement et plus les risques de désunion sont grands. La vérification de cette hypothèse nécessite le recours à un plan de recherche comportant trois périodes d’observation. Les participants recrutés rempliront une batterie de questionnaires dont

(9)

IX l’Inventaire des motivation conjugales et l’Échelle d’ajustement dyadique. L'originalité de cette étude tient au caractère longitudinal du protocole d’expérience.

(10)

The prediction of union dissolution: Verification of a mediational model Couple dissolution and divorce are known as common phenomena. Divorce and permanent separation have reached a rate which exceeds 40% in North America (National Center for Health Statistics). According to Statistics Canada (1995), one couple out of two gets separated or divorced and according to Cherlin (1992), almost half of all recent marriages will end up by a voluntary disruption. However, even if over the last decades the rate of divorce has increased in proportions, since the two last decades, it is possible to observe a stability of this rate (Goldstein, 1999; Teachman, Teadrow, & Crowder, 2000). To understand this phenomenon, researchers have tried to specify which factors deteriorate couples’ relationships and what predicts divorce. Prediction of divorce or separation has been studied a lot in the last years (Amato & Rogers, 1997; Bray & Jouriles, 1995; Carrere & Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Levenson, 1999; Kurdek, 1991) and researchers have used a wide variety of demographic and

psychosocial variables to successfully predict union dissolution. Although a large number of studies have identified risk factors, Heyman and Smith Slep (2001) pointed out that only 15 published studies have successfully predicted who will get divorced (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Carrere, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000; Crane, Soderquist, & Frank, 1995; Edwards, Johnson, & Booth, 1987; Powers & Olson, 1986; Gottman, 1994; Gottman et ah, 1998; Gottman & Levenson, 1999; Hill & Peplau, 1998; Jackobson, Gottman, Gortner, Berns, & Shortt, 1996; Kurdeck, 1993; Larsen & Olson, 1989; Lindhal, Clements, & Markman, 1998; Matthews, Wickrama, & Conger, 1996; Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). Among those studies, none has tried to predict divorce from couple motivation, even though motivation is recognized as playing an important role in

(11)

Prediction of union dissolution 11

the regulation of human behaviors (Vallerand & Thill, 1993). The motivation to be engaged in a couple relationship has recently been related to couple satisfaction in cross- sectional studies (Aimé, Sabourin, & Valois, 2000; Blais, Boucher, Sabourin, &

Vallerand, 1990; Giguère, Fortin, & Sabourin, 1999). Indeed, since dyadic satisfaction is a widely used variable and a robust predictor of couple stability (e.g. Glenn & Weaver, 1981, Kamey & Bradbury, 1995) and since couple motivation play an important role in dyadic satisfaction, this study aims to use those two variables in the development of a prediction model of union dissolution.

In the present study, motivation is looked through out the theoretical model developed by Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991). The conceptual validity of this model has been tested in a variety of domain such as gerontology (Vallerand & O’Connor, 1989), education (Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989), sports (Brière, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier, 1995), leisure activities (Pelletier, Vallerand, Green-Demers, Brière, & Blais, 1995), work-family conflict (Senécal, Vallerand, & Guay, 2001), anger and aggressive behavior in driving (Neighbors, Vietor, & Knee, 2002) and in romantic relationships (Aimé et al., 2000; Blais, et al., 1990; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002). Conceptual models of couple satisfaction are generally based on cognitive factors (personal efficacy expectations, attributions, coping strategies, etc ), demographic variables (age, income, union type, education, etc.), interpersonal behaviors (communication skills and problem solving strategies) and personality factors

(attachment, neuroticism, amability, extraversión, private self-consciousness, openness to experience, marital locus of control, empathy, etc.) (Bouchard, Sabourin, Lussier, Wright, & Richer, 1997; Lussier, Sabourin, & Turgeon, 1997). However, the impact of

(12)

motivational orientations on dyadic satisfaction, which are the reasons which motivate couple’s members to engage and maintain a long-term relationships, has been a neglected topic (Jones, 1993).

The self-determination theory of Dec! and Ryan (1985, 1991) postulates the existence of different types of motivation which lie on a continuum. According to these authors, there are six types of motivation which can be conceptualized in three different categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. The self-

determination continuum brings the possibility of ordering the different types of

motivation in function of their self-determination level. Intrinsic motivation (IM) has the highest level of self-determination, followed by the four types of extrinsic motivation (EM) which are, from the highest to the lowest levels of self-determination, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation and external regulation. Finally, at the end of the continuum lies the non self-determined motivation, amotivation. A person who is intrinsically motivated would be engaged in an intimate relationships simply for the satisfaction and the happiness he or she gets from this relationship. On the contrary, extrinsic motivation gather behaviors which are motivated by instrumental purposes. Indeed, an individual would be engaged in an intimate relationship to obtain external rewards or to avoid punishments (material or social). More specifically, if we decorticate the four types of EM, a person who is motivated to be engaged in an intimate relationship for reasons based on external regulation (the lowest self-determined EM) is regulated by sources of control totally external to herself or himself like material rewards or

constraints coerced by others. For example, a woman would maintain a relationship because her spouse brings her and their kids good financial security. The introjected

(13)

regulation comprises a source of control which gets internalized progressively, but creates a pressure to the person. Expectations and pressure from the environment motivate the person’s behaviors. A person would maintain a relationship just to please and not deceive his or her family. The person has introjected for whatever reason he or she would

deceived others if they split up. So, it is the person who puts this pressure on herself or on himself. As for identified regulation, it is at this level that it is possible to observe a certain degree of self-determination. In fact, the behaviors are effectuated by choice and they are valued and perceived as important. The person identifies to these behaviors. For example, a partner would maintain the relationship because his or her spouse gives her or him the possibility to practice activities that she or he values a lot like golf or alpine skiing. The person really identified and defined herself or himself with these activities. Here, the person does not maintain the relationship only for the financial opportunity of practicing these activities, but also because those activities are important and valued and the person identified to them. Finally, the motivation to be engaged in a couple become integrated when the individual makes choices that he or she controls and determines by himself or herself, and when these choices are coherently integrated with the individual’s personality. Indeed, a person would maintain a relationships with his or her partner because they share the same projects such as marriage, getting a house, having kids, etc., and the person wants to realize these projects with his or her partner. Lastly, amotivation is associated with the absence of any kind of motivation. An amotivated person does not know why he or she is engaged in the relationship and why he or she does not try to split up with his or her partner.

(14)

The previous studies that have examined the link between dyadic satisfaction or relationship commitment and the motivation to be engaged in a close relationship have all found a strong and significant link between these concepts (Aimé et al., 2000; Blais, et al., 1990; Giguère et al., 1999; Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt, 1997; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980, Ton & Hansen, 2001).

The study of Seligman et al. (1980) was one of the first studies to analyze the role of motivation on dyadic satisfaction. They evaluated 19 couples who were engaged since 12 months or less and they studied the effects of extrinsic rewards on the amount of love that both partners expressed to each other. They measured the amount of love with the Rubin’s Loving and Liking Scale. They demonstrated that spouses who are engaged with their partner for extrinsic reasons express less love to their partner than the spouses who are engaged for intrinsic reasons. These authors hypothesized that the longevity of an intimate relationship could vary in function of the motivational style of the partners. Moreover, they considered that an intimate relationship would last longer and be more stable if the motivation to be engaged in this relationship is intrinsic instead of extrinsic.

Rempel et al. (1985) obtained similar results. They tested a theoretical model of interpersonal trust in close relationships with a sample of 47 couples. More particularly, they examined the validity of a three-dimensional model of trust (predictability,

dependability and faith) based on the type of attributions drawn about a partner’s motives. As they expected, love and happiness were closely related to feeling of faith and the attribution of intrinsic motivation to both self and partner. They also measured the amount of love with the Rubin’s Loving and Liking Scale. Indeed, they observed that the

(15)

motivational style of a spouse is related to the perceptions of the partner’s motives and couples also tend to attribute similar motives to each other.

Blais, et al. (1990) studied the role of motivation in intimate relationships in a sample of 63 married or cohabiting couples. They developed a motivational model of couple happiness based on the self-determination theory. Their motivational model proposed that self-determined types of motivational orientation will enhance more adaptive behaviors and eventually more positive affective reactions. This study was the first to test empirically the validity of the full range of the motivational styles proposed by the self-determination theory. Their results showed that for both spouses motivational orientation toward their intimate relationship could strongly predict personal feelings of satisfaction with the relationship through their impact on perceptions of the dyad’s adaptive behaviors (e.g., consensus, cohesion, and affectional expression). The results also revealed that the proposed model could explain 61% and 55% of the variance of men’s and women’s dyadic satisfaction.

As for Giguère et al. (1999), they studied the contribution of motivational styles, personality traits and sociodemographic variables to dyadic satisfaction with individuals in their first and their second conjugal union. Their sample was composed of 443 French- Canadian participants married or cohabiting, and among those, 274 participants who were in their first union and 169 in their second union. Results showed that for both groups of individuals, amotivation is a negative predictor of dyadic satisfaction while intrinsic motivation is positively related to couple satisfaction.

Aimé, et al. (2000) in their longitudinal study have examined whether couples’ partners adopt motivational styles which tend toward self-determination and to observe

(16)

the link between the pairing of the motivational style and dyadic satisfaction. They found that couples were more likely to express self-determined motivation and that couples who presented congruent (the same motivational style) and self-determined motivation were more satisfied with their relationship. Moreover, they observed a strong and significant link between dyadic satisfaction and the motivation to be engaged in an intimate

relationship. Their results also showed that initial motivation could longitudinally predict dyadic satisfaction.

Ton and Hansen (2001) explored whether person-environment fit of interests and values predicted individuals’ satisfaction and motivation for work and marital roles. They reported that marital satisfaction mediates the relationship between values and interests congruence and couple motivation.

Finally, Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt (1997) studied 130 heterosexual dating couples and they examined how the intrinsic and extrinsic relationship values of both partners were linked to each spouse’s relationship commitment and to 6-month relationship stability. Their findings demonstrated that for both male and female partners, the importance of extrinsic aspects of the relationship was negatively correlated with relationship commitment whereas the importance of the intrinsic aspect of the

relationship was positively linked to relationship commitment. Concerning relationship stability, they found that when both partners have intrinsic relationship values, they will be more motivated to continue their relationship. The regression coefficients for

predicting relationship stability are ß= .40 (p< .01) for the own intrinsic values, and ß = .22 (p< .01) for the partner’ intrinsic values. Indeed, intrinsic motives are related to

(17)

relationship stability, especially when the other partner has high intrinsic values. These results need to be duplicated with married or cohabiting couples.

Consequently, from those studies we can conclude that the more motivational orientation is self-determined, the more an individual will obtain satisfaction from his or her relationship. In taking into account the strong and significant relationship between motivational styles and dyadic satisfaction and considering the clearly established association between dyadic satisfaction and marital dissolution (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995), this study proposes that motivation and dyadic satisfaction are key factors in the prediction of couple disruption.

Using a longitudinal design based on a 3 periods of observation over a 8-year period, we hypothesized that self-determined motivation at time 1 would be related to couple satisfaction at time 2 which, in turn, would be associated with union dissolution risk at time 3.

Method Participants and procedure

The sample of this study was composed of 226 heterosexual couples who volunteered to participate in a study on the determinants of dyadic satisfaction. The participants were all French-speaking Canadian residing in the province of Quebec, married or living in cohabitation. These participants were recruited through publicity in the media (radio, newspapers, television) and ads on the university campus. Participants’ characteristics are presented in table 1. At time 1, all couples completed a battery of questionnaires. These couples were reinvited to answer to the same series of

(18)

Among the 226 couples, 93 couples accepted to complete the questionnaires a second time. More precisely, 189 were reached and 37 couples could not be located. Indeed, 83.6 % of the original sample was contacted at time 2. Among the 189 couples reached, 57 couples were separated or divorced (30.2 %), 26 refused to participate a second time in the study (13.8 %), and 106 couples accepted (56.1 %) to complete the battery of

questionnaires. Among these 106 couples, 93 couples (87.7 %) completed the

questionnaires. Overall, 132 couples were eligible for participation in our study (the 106 couples who accepted to participate and the 26 couples who refused to participate but were still living together at time 2). Therefore the participation rate for time 2 is 70.5 % (93/132) and the percentage of couples which did not send back the questionnaires is 12.3 %(13/106).

At time 3, 60 months later, the 93 couples who participated at time 2 were contacted for a third time. The aim was to ascertain the status of these couples about 8 years after time 1 of the study in order to develop a prediction model of marital

disruption. Among the 93 couples, 78 couples were reached and 15 could not be located, thus the participation rate was 86 %. The 78 couples were simply reached by a phone call and they were asked if they were still living together. Among the 78 couples, 64 were still together (82 %), 11 couples (14 %) were either divorced or separated, and 3 couples’ members were deceased (4 %). At the moment of these deaths, the 3 couples were still living together.

Couple Motivation Questionnaire. This French questionnaire was developed by Blais et al. (1990) to assess the six types of motivation postulated by the self-

(19)

contains 21 items and evaluates the motivation an individual has to engage in an intimate relationships. Participants are required to rate the extent to which items relate to one of the reasons why they are actually engaged with their spouse. Responses are rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to exactly (7). More particularly, the Couple Motivation Questionnaire measure six different constructs which are: amotivation (4 items, alpha = .88), external regulation (2 items, intercorrelation = .33), introjected regulation (3 items, alpha = .58), identified regulation (4 items, alpha = .72), integrated regulation (4 items, alpha = .67) and intrinsic motivation (4 items, alpha = .82). The more a score on a subscale is high, the more the individual owns this type of motivation.

This questionnaire allows to locate the individual on the self-determination continuum. A global score of motivation can be obtained. First, to obtain this score, the mean for each subscale is calculated and each mean is weighted: -3 for amotivation, -2 for external regulation, -1 for introjected regulation, 1 for identified regulation, 2 for

integrated regulation and 3 for intrinsic motivation. Then, to get the total score of

motivation, all the means are added (see Grolinick and Ryan, 1987 for more details). The scores can vary between -133 to +168. The more the score is high, the more the

individual is motivated to be engaged with an intimate partner in a self-determined manner. The validity of this questionnaire was supported in the study of Blais et al.

(1990).

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). This questionnaire, conceived by Spanier

(1976), evaluates the perceptions that the couples’ partners have of their relationships and their adjustment behaviors. The French version of the DAS, “Échelle d’Ajustement Dyadique”, translated by Baillargeon, Dubois, & Marineau (1986) was used for this

(20)

study. This questionnaire is composed of 32 items grouped in four subscales: dyadic satisfaction (10 items), dyadic consensus (13 items), dyadic cohesion (5 items) and dyadic affectional expression (4 items). A total DAS score can be obtained by summing all the items of the four subscales. This score can vary between 0 and 151. The higher the total DAS score is, the happier the couples’ partners are of their actual relationship. The metrological qualities of this instrument have been demonstrated for both the English (Spanier, 1976; Spanier & Thompson, 1982) and the French versions (Baillargeon et al., 1986, Sabourin, Lussier, Tapiante, & Wright, 1990).

Results

Stability of couple motivation and satisfaction. T-tests were first computed to determine the stability of self-determined couple motivation (MR) and couple satisfaction (DS) from the first to the second period of observation. These differences did not reach significance (Time 1 MR: 32=88.56, SD=38.52, Time 2 MR: 37=84.49,529=34.75, t= 1.17, Time 1 DS: 32=111.44, 529=16.15, Time 2 DS: 32=109.84, 529=16.74, t= 1.78). The correlations between self-determined couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction at time 1 are .78 (p< .01) and .60 (p< .01) at time 2. Table 2 presents all the correlations between these two variables. Indeed, there is a significant and strong relationship between motivation and dyadic satisfaction.

Mediational model. To create our mediational model, two path analyses were conducted using the multiple regression technique (Pedhazur, 1982). Path analyses were used to verify whether the path which goes from self-determined couple motivation at time 1 to couple satisfaction at time 2 is stronger than the path from couple satisfaction at time 1 to couple motivation at time 2. Our hypothesis was that the relationship between

(21)

couple motivation at time 1 (MR1) and dyadic satisfaction at time 2 (DS2) would be stronger than the relationship between dyadic satisfaction at time 1(DS1) and dyadic motivation at time 2 (MR2). The first path analysis indicated that all the relationships between the variables were significant, but with the collinearity diagnostic, we observed that dyadic motivation and dyadic satisfaction at time 1 were too highly correlated (.78) and provoked a multicollineatity problem. Dyadic motivation and dyadic satisfaction at time 1 seem to explain the same thing.

Belsley, Kuh and Welsh (1980) proposed two necessary conditions to

acknowledge the presence of a multicollinearity problem: (1) a conditioning index > .30 for a given dimension coupled with at least (2) two variance proportions for an individual variable > .50. The conditioning index for dyadic satisfaction at time 2 is lower than .30, but still quite high (.28) and the variance proportions for dyadic satisfaction at time 1 and for self-determined couple motivation at time 1 are respectively .99 and .50. Thus, even though the two conditions are only partly fulfilled, the variance of the standard error is probably inflated enough to create a statistical artifact and to cause a multicollinearity problem.

Consequently, a second path analysis was conducted. Following Tabachnik and Fidell’s recommendations (2001), we eliminated couple satisfaction at time 1 rather than self-determined motivation at time 1 because we did not plan to use the first variable in our prediction model. Indeed, this implies that our hypothesis is not confirmed because couple satisfaction is removed from the path analysis.

Therefore, we created a new mediational model (see Figure 1). This model presents a three-variable system, which includes two causal paths feeding the outcome

(22)

variable, couple satisfaction. First, there is the direct impact of self-determined couple motivation at time 1 on the dyadic satisfaction at time 2 (Path c), which is non-significant and second, the impact of the mediator, self-determined couple motivation at time 2, on couple satisfaction at time 2 (Path b). This path is significant, ß- .639 (p< .05). The path from initial to ulterior self-determined couple motivation (Path a) is also significant, ß = .465 (p< .05). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediating variable needs to meet the following conditions: (1) variations in levels of the independent variable (MR1) significantly account for the variations in the presumed mediator (MR2). This is what is observed in Path a, (2) variations in the mediator significantly account for the variations in the dependent variable (DS2), this is what is observed in Path b, and (3) when Paths a and b are controlled, a previously significant relation between the independent and dependent variables is no longer significant, with the strongest demonstration of

mediation occurring when Path c is zero (p. 1176). Indeed, our results demonstrate that the model is meeting the conditions. Couple motivation at time 2 is acting as a mediational variable between couple motivation at time 1 and dyadic satisfaction at time 2.

Since the crossing relationships of the two different variables (MR and DS) on the two different time are not significant, we had to construct a new model to verify if couple satisfaction could act as a mediating variable in the prediction of union dissolution. The model we proposed is a three-variable system, which includes two causal paths feeding the outcome variable, union dissolution. Firstly, the direct impact of dyadic motivation on union dissolution (Path c) and secondly, the impact of the mediator, dyadic satisfaction, on union dissolution (Path b). There is also a path from self-determined couple motivation to the mediator (Path a). Since union dissolution is a dichotomous variable, logistic

(23)

regressions were conducted to test the linkages of the mediational model. The results were unsatisfying and non-significant for the three paths. In the present study, dyadic satisfaction does not act as a mediational variable. Indeed, the mediational model that we developed does not work out with the variables of our study.

Predicting union dissolution. Even though couple satisfaction did not act as a mediator, Cox regressions were computed to verify if the model could be significant with this kind of analysis. Cox regressions were used because they take into account more precisely the length of time of the study. The results of these analyses did not reach

(24)

Survival curve. Figure 2 illustrates the survival curve four our sample of participants. This is an estimate of the proportions of couples who did not experienced union dissolution for each testing period. The horizontal axis depicts the time elapsed in months since the beginning of the study. The time variable is the duration of cohabitation of the couple. It was easier to use this variable instead of the time elapsed from the

marriage because not every couples were married. The mean duration of cohabitation at the beginning of the study is M= 98.36 (SD=93.72) and the mean at the end of the study is M- 208.90 (SD= 117.21). The vertical axis depicts the proportion of couples surviving at each point of the horizontal axis. Since all the couples that were not together at time 2 and all the unreachable couples were removed from the study, we observed a low decline of the proportion of the couples who remain together. Figure 2 indicates that at the end of the study, 82% of the couples were still together.

The results of the Cox regression indicated that self-determined couple motivation (MR) at time 1 (Tl) and couple satisfaction at time 2 (T2) did not significantly predict union dissolution (X2 =1.09 p> 0.05) at time 3 (T3) in this study.

Discussion

The results of this study show clear evidence of a significant cross-sectional association between self-determined couple motivation and relationship satisfaction. Indeed, the more an individual has a motivational style that tend toward self-

determination, the more this individual is satisfied with his or her relationship. Those results confirm what previous studies have found on the link between these two concepts (Aimé et al., 2000; Blais et al., 1990; Giguère et al., 1999; Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt, 1997, Rempel et al., 1985; Seligman et al., 1980). Moreover, our results give support to

(25)

the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991). Couple satisfaction is affected differently depending on the motivational style of a spouse on the self- determination continuum. However, the results of this study did not demonstrate the predictive validity of this theory in a predictive model of union dissolution.

We sought to determine the value of a mediational model of union dissolution, where dyadic satisfaction at time 2 would act as a mediational variable between couple motivation at time 1 and dyadic status at time 3. The results demonstrated that there are strong and significant cross-sectional relationships between self-determined couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction. However, these variables are too highly related and they seem to explain the same thing. This result might be due to the measure instruments which were not sensible enough to evaluate independently these two constructs. Also, the sample of this study may be too homogeneous and stable to consistently explain union dissolution. In fact, these couples were cohabiting for a long period of time, even prior the beginning of the study. There is actually no difference between time 1 and time 2 in levels of motivation and satisfaction. Contrary to what previous studies have

demonstrated, in the present study, dyadic satisfaction does not decline significantly with time (Kurdeck, 1991; Markman, 1981). Moreover, in our sample, the couples were almost all intact at the end of the study. Indeed, the participants may have many similar characteristics which make it more difficult to distinguish them on the constructs.

Concerning the mediational model that we attempted to develop, the results were

non conclusive. They indicated that the model was not significant. Our main hypothesis, stipulating that union dissolution or dyadic status could be predicted from the

(26)

self-determined couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction, was not supported. Neither motivational orientation, nor couple satisfaction predicted union dissolution.

These results contradict those obtained by Devine & Forehand (1996) others (for more details, see Kamey & Bradbury, 1995), who clearly reported that couple satisfaction is a significant factor in the prediction of divorce. The fact that dyadic satisfaction could not predict significantly union dissolution could be related to the collinearity problem observed between motivation and dyadic satisfaction at time 1. As mentioned earlier, these variables are highly correlated.

There may also exist another mediating variable between couple motivation and union dissolution. This mediator could be adaptive behaviors. According to the self- determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991), the high self-determined motivation is associated with autonomous behaviors which originate from oneself openly and

choicefully, whereas low self-determined motivation is associated with controlled behaviors which are coerced by others or motivated by expectations and pressure from the environment. Autonomous behaviors are characterized by openness to feedback and desire for improvement and mastery, whereas controlled behaviors are characterized by individuals who view feedback as threatening, try to defend their ego and are dishonest with themselves and others (Hodgins and Knee, in press, in Knee et ah, 2002). Indeed, we could hypothesized that low self-determined couple motivation would influence adaptive behaviors (a low self-determined individual would react defensively in a marital conflict), and this in turn would influence union dissolution (the chances of ending the relationship are higher). This hypothesis needs to be tested empirically.

(27)

Another possible explanation for the absence of relationship between couple satisfaction and union dissolution could be related to the fact that people who are extrinsically motivated dot not really care about their dyadic satisfaction because their motivation comes from something outside them like their social status or the perceptions of their environment. Therefore, the extrinsically motivated spouses could either have a high or a low dyadic satisfaction because it does not matter to them, their source of satisfaction comes from outside instead of inside them. On the contrary, intrinsically motivated spouses could monitor their dyadic satisfaction more closely, and they would probably be more prompt to end up a relationship than extrinsically motivated spouses because their motivation to be in the relationship depend on their satisfaction. This hypothesis would need to be tested empirically.

Certain limitations of this study also need to be acknowledged and taken into account. Couples who participated in the study were not all at an equivalent point of their relationship. Some couples were cohabiting since few months, other were either married or cohabiting since many years. This limitation could explain the fact that couple

motivation and dyadic satisfaction did not change significantly between time 1 and time 2. At time 1, the couples were cohabiting for a period ranging around 8 years. Available longitudinal data demonstrate that the decline of dyadic satisfaction is more abrupt during the first few years of marriage or period of dating (Belsky & Rovine, 1990, Bradbury, Finchara, & Beach, 2000; Cowan et ah, 1985; Kurdek, 1991, Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988). Indeed, in the present sample the major decline in relationship

satisfaction may have already happened. Moreover, Goldstein (1999) pointed out that the divorce rate peaks during the fourth year for both first marriages and remarriages. At our

(28)

first testing period, the couples of our study were married or cohabiting for a much longer time than 4 years. The couples of our study were probably a cohort of very stable couples. It would be interesting to replicate this study with our mediational model, but with

newlywed or newly dating couples, and observe if there would be any differences between these two different samples.

In our analyses, we only included the 78 couples that were still together at time 3. Therefore, we eliminated many couples at time 1 and time 2. If all couples who refused to participate and couples who where unreachable could have been included in the survival analysis, we would have had a larger sample, and therefore, the analyses would probably have been more powerful. Also, the sample would have been more heterogeneous and probably we would have observed significant differences between dyadic motivation and dyadic satisfaction between the time 1 and time 2. Also, the multicollinearity problem may have been avoided, with more subjects, there would have been more variance on the variables of our study (couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction). Unfortunately, it was impossible for us to include those couples in our analyses because we did not have their status at time 3. Dyadic status was an important variable in our study because we sought to predict union dissolution. Consequently, this may be another explanation of why couple motivation and dyadic satisfaction were not able to predict the dyadic status. Finally, another limitation of our study was that the observed statistical power was not strong enough, so it affected negatively our analyses. Indeed, because of this limitation and the small size of our sample, we did not look at the differences between men and women.

(29)

References

Aimé, A., Sabourin, S., & Valois, P. (2000). L'appariement des styles de motivation et l'évolution de la satisfaction conjugale. Revue canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 32, 178-186.

Amato, P.R. & Rogers, S J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624.

Baillargeon, J., Dubois, G., & Marineau, R. (1986). Traduction française de l'Échelle d'ajustement dyadique. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 18, 25-34.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategie and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Belsky, J. & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 5-20.

Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., & Welsh, R.E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Blais, M.R., & Sabourin, S. (1990). Construction et validation du questionnaire de

motivation du couple. Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec at Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Blais, M.R., Sabourin, S. Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R.J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

1021-1031.

Bouchard, G., Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Wright, J., & Richer, C. (1997). Testing the theoretical models underlying the Ways of Coping Questionnaire with couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 409-418.

Bradbury, T.N. (Ed.). (1998). The developmental course of marital dysfunction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bradbury, T.N., Finchara, F.D., & Beach, S.R.H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964-980.

Bray, J.H., & Jouriles, E.N. (1995). Treatment of marital conflict and prevention of divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 461-473.

(30)

Brière, N.M., Vallerand, R.J., Blais, M.R., & Pelletier, L.G. (1995). Développement et validation d’une mesure de motivation intrinsèque, extrinsèque et d’amotivation en contexte sportif : L’échelle de motivation dans les sports (EMS). International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 465-489.

Buehlman, K.T., Gottman, J.M., & Katz, L.F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future : Predicting divorce from an oral history review. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295-318.

Carrere, S., Buehlman, K.T., Gottman, J.M., Coan, J.A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000).

Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 42-58.

Carrère, S., & Gottman, J.M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38, 293-301. Cherlin, A.J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Cowan, C.P., Cowan, P.A., Heming, G., Garrett, E., Coysh, W.S., Curtis-Boles, H., & Boles A.J. (1985). Transitions to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 451-481.

Crane, D. R., Soderquist, J.N., & Frank, (1995). Predicting divorce at marital therapy intake: A preliminary model. American Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 227-236.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NY : Plenum Press.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self : Integration in

personality. In R. Diensbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation : Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp.237-288). Lincoln, NB : University of Nebraska Press.

Devine, D, & Forehand, R. (1996). Cascading toward divorce : The roles of marital and child factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 424-427. Edwards, J.N., Johnson, D.R., & Booth, A. (1987). Coming apart: A prognostic

instrument of marital breakup. Family Relations, 36, 168-170.

Powers, B.J., & Olson, D.H. (1986). Predicting marital success with PREPARE: A predictive validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 403-413. Giguère, J., Fortin, C., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Déterminants de satisfaction conjugale

chez des personnes vivant une première union ou une seconde union conjugale. Journal International de Psychologie, 34, 119-132.

(31)

Glenn, N.D., & Weaver, C.N. (1981). The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 161168־.

Goldstein, J.R. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States. Demography, 36, 409-414.

Gottman, J.M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (1999). Rebound from marital conflict and divorce prediction. Family Process, 38, 287-292.

Heyman, R.E.,& Smith Slep, A.M. (2001). The hazard of predicting divorce without crossvalidation. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 63, 473-479.

Hill, C.T., & Peplau, L.A. (1998). Premarital predictors of relationship outcomes: A 15-year follow-up of the Boston Couples Study. In T.N. Bradbury, (Ed.). (1998). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp.237-278). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Jackobson, N.S., Gottman, J.M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shortt, J.W. (1996).

Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371-392. Jones, M. (1993). Influence of self-monitoring on dating motivations. Journal of

Research in Personality, 27, 197-206.

Karney, B.R., & Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability : A review of theory, method and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.

Knee, C.R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N.A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self- determination as growth in romantic relationships. Personality and social

psychology bulletin, 28, 609-619.

Kurdeck, L.A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 221-242.

Kurdek, L.A. (1991). Predictors of increases in marital distress in newlywed couples: A 3-year prospective longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 627-636. Kurdek, L.A., & Schnopp-Wyatt, D. (1997). Predicting relationship commitment and

relationship stability from both partners' relationship values : Evidence from heterosexual dating couples. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 23,

(32)

Larsen, A.S., & Olson, D.H. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction using PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 311-322.

Lindhai, K., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1998).The development of marriage: A nine- year perpective. In T.N. Bradbury, (Ed.). (1998). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp.205-236). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Lussier, Y. Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the

relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 777-791.

Markman, H.J., Floyd, F.J., Stanlet, S.M., & Storaasli, R.D. (1988), Prevention of marital distress : A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 56, 210-217.

Markman, H.J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress : A 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762.

Matthews, L.S., Wickrama, K.A.S., & Conger, R.D. (1996). Predicting marital instability from spouse and observer reports of marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 641-655.

National Center for Health Statistics (1995). Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1989 and 1990. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 43, Supplement.

Neighbors, C., Vietor, N.A., & Knee, C.R. (2002). A motivational model of driving anger and aggression. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28, 324-335.

Pedhazur, E.L. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Pelletier, L.G., Vallerand, R.J., Green-Demers, 1., Brière, N.M., Blais, M.R. (1995). Loisirs et santé mentale : les relations entre la motivation pour la pratique des loisirs et le bien-être psychologique. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 27,140-156.

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.

Rogge, R.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1999). Til violence does us apart: The differing roles of communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 340-351.

(33)

Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Laplante, B., & Wright, J. (1990). Unidimensional and multidimensional models of dyadic adjustment : A hierarchical reconciliation. Psychological Assessment : A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 333-337.

Seligman, C., Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1980). Effects of salience of extrinsinc rewards on liking and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 453^60.

Sénécal, C., Vallerand, R.J., & Guay, F. (2001). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Toward a motivational model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 176-186.

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Spanier, G.B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic

Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Statistics Canada (1995). Canadian Social Trends.

Tabachnik, B.G., & Fideli, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Teachman, J.D., Tedrow, L.M., & Crowderm K.D. (2000). The changing demography of America’s Families. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 62, 1234-1246. Ton, M.T.N., & Hansen, J.I.C. (2001). Using a person-enviromnent fit framework to

predict satisfaction and motivation in work and marital Roles. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 315-331.

Vallerand, R.J., Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M. & Pelletier, L.G. (1989). Construction et

validation de l’Échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME). Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 21, 323-349.

Vallerand, R J. & Thill, E.E. (1993). Introduction à la psychologie de la motivation. Montréal : Éditions Études Vivantes.

Vallerand, R.J. & O’Connor, B .P. (1989). Motivation in the elderly : A theoretical framework and some provising findings. Canadian Psychology, 30, 538-550.

(34)

Table 1

Participants’ Characteristics at the beginning of the study

Characteristics Time 1 (n=T56) ~M

KD.

Mean age 36.1 9.2 Year of schooling 16.1 3.4 Years of cohabitation 8.2 7.8 Number of serious relationships 2.4 1.4 Income 30 939.61$ 19 606.30$ Number of children 1.1 1.3 Number of children 0.3 0.9 in a previous relation Status Married 82 participants (53.2%) Unmarried 72 participants (46.8%) Mental health consultation

Individual 25 participants (16.2%) Couple 6 participants (3.9%)

(35)

Prediction of union dissolution 3 5

Table 2

Correlations between dyadic motivation and dyadic satisfaction at time 1 and at time 2

Totmotl Ajusdyl Totmot2 Ajusdy2

Totmot 1 Ajusdy 1 .779** Totmot2 .426** .360** Ajusdy2 .309** .510** .598** **p< .01 Note 1.

Totmot 1= total score of dyadic motivation at time 1 Totmot2= total score of dyadic motivation at time 2 Ajusdyl = total score of dyadic satisfaction at time 1 Ajusdy2= total score of dyadic satisfaction at time 2

(36)

Figure 1

Path analysis to develop the mediational model of status prediction. Regression coefficients are indicated in the boxes).

MR2

MR 1

***p< .001 Note 1.

MR1= total score of dyadic motivation at time 1 MR2= total score of dyadic motivation at time 2 DS2= total score of dyadic satisfaction at time 2

(37)

Figure 2

Survival Function

Survival Function at mean of covariates

Duration of cohabitation Cu m s u rv iv a l

(38)

CONCLUSION GÉNÉRALE

L’objectif de la présente étude longitudinale consistait à vérifier la valeur d’un modèle médiationnel de la prédiction de la dissolution d’union. Ce modèle stipulait que la motivation à être en couple influencerait la satisfaction conjugale ultérieure et cette

relation permettrait par la suite de prédire la désunion. A cause de certaines limites de notre étude telles qu’un échantillon très stable avec peu d’hétérogénéité sur les variables à l’étude, ainsi qu’en raison du manque d’homogénéité des couples au départ de l’étude, le modèle s’est avéré non significatif. Dans la présente étude, la motivation à être en couple et la satisfaction conjugale ne prédisent donc pas la dissolution d’union. La reprise de cette étude avec des couples nouvellement mariés ou commençant à cohabiter est fortement recommandée.