Linked Lives: Dyadic Associations of Mastery Beliefs With Health (Behavior) and Health (Behavior) Change Among Older Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Mastery beliefs are known to contribute to healthy aging.However, it is an open question whether individual mastery-health associations impact the health of close long-term partners.Method: We applied actor-partner interdependence models to 4-wave, 6-year longitudinal dyadic data from married and cohabitating partners in the Health and Retirement Study (N = 1,981 partners; age at baseline: M = 67 years, SD = 8.93, range 50-94 years).Results: Higher individual mastery beliefs were associated with better individual physical health and health behaviors.Higher mastery beliefs were associated with subsequent increases in light physical activity.Having a partner with higher levels of mastery was uniquely associated with fewer functional limitations, better self-rated health, and more physical activity.Actor × Partner interaction effects for functional limitations indicated multiplicative associations of actor and partner mastery with health.Of note, mastery-health associations for individuals and their partners were invariant across age, gender, education, employment status, perceived stress over one's own and partner's health, and cognition.Discussion: Findings suggest that partner mastery beliefs matter for the health (behaviors) of older adults.We discuss possible mechanisms underlying partner interrelations in mastery and health, their age invariance, and consider implications arising from our results. Keywords: Dyads-Health-Health and Retirement Study (HRS)-Mastery-PartnersLife span research has long acknowledged the relevance of mastery beliefs for successful aging (Bandura, 1997;Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995).Empirical research has demonstrated that mastery is positively associated with various health outcomes (Lachman, 2006;Rodin, 1986), including cardiovascular health (Roepke & Grant, 2011), physical functioning (Caplan & Schooler, 2003), and reduced mortality hazards (Surtees et al., 2010).These studies focused on associations at the individual level.It is an open question, whether and how mastery beliefs and health are related at the couple level.Individual functioning and development are profoundly shaped by the social contexts people live in (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).Spouses and long-term partners are known to constitute one such context because partners share a long history of idiosyncratic experiences and jointly deal with many of the same opportunities and
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".