Spousal neuroticism moderates everyday problem-wellbeing associations in older couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Marriage partners exert a special influence on each other's health and wellbeing, potentially even more so in old age, when social networks shrink and spouses become ever more important resources for dealing with everyday problems. This study extends past research by examining associations between spousal levels of neuroticism, a key trait tied to wellbeing and health, and everyday fluctuations in positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA), physical symptoms, and responses to everyday problems. METHODS: Forty-nine wives and 49 husbands aged 60-83 years (M marriage duration = 42.5 years) provided independent neuroticism self-reports. Spouses then simultaneously reported their PA and NA, physical health symptoms, and everyday problems 3 times daily for 9 days (up to 27 daily life assessments in total) using handheld computers. RESULTS: Hierarchical linear models replicate past research by linking higher individual neuroticism with lower overall PA, higher overall NA, and more severe overall physical symptoms. Interestingly, although individual neuroticism did not affect associations between everyday problems and affect and physical symptoms, spousal neuroticism did moderate these relationships. Individuals with spouses higher in neuroticism (compared with those with spouses lower in neuroticism) reported less pronounced elevations in NA and physical symptoms, and less pronounced reductions in PA, when number of problems was greater, even when controlling for partner presence and various individual- and couple-level covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are discussed in the context of evolutionary psychology and suggest that spousal neuroticism may serve adaptive functions by increasing vigilance and preparing older spouses to deal with everyday problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".