Couple Religiosity and Well-Being Among Older Adults in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This article evaluates whether couples’ religious similarity is consequential for the health of older married men and women. Alternatively, we examine whether women’s religiosity alone is health-protective to their husbands . Methods: Using dyadic data from the US National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, a representative sample of 913 individuals ages 62–91 plus their marital partners, we perform latent-class analysis to separate older couples into classes based on religious characteristics. Ordered logistic regression models are then used to assess whether different combinations of religious (dis)similarity are associated with married men and women’s well-being. Results: We find that older women in highly religious, homogamous marriages report better mental and physical health relative to women in heterogamous and secular (non-religious) marriages. No significant associations were observed for men. Discussion: Our results emphasize that religiosity is not only an individual trait—dis/similarities within a couple have important implications for older women’s well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".