Partner Pain and Affect in the Daily Lives of Older Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The susceptibility of older adults' affect to fluctuations in their own health (within-person health sensitivity) indicates how they handle everyday health challenges. In old age, affective well-being is often increasingly influenced by close others, yet it is unknown whether older adults' affect is additionally susceptible to fluctuations in their spouse's health (within-partnership health sensitivity) and the extent to which age and relationship satisfaction moderate such associations. METHODS: Parallel sets of multilevel actor-partner interdependence models are applied to self-reported health (feelings of pain/discomfort) and positive and negative affect, obtained 6 times a day over 7 consecutive days from 2 independent samples, the Berlin Couple Dynamics Study (N = 87 couples; Mage = 75 years; M relationship length = 46 years) and the Socio-Economic Panel Couple Dynamics Study (N = 151 couples; Mage = 72 years; M relationship length = 47 years). RESULTS: Husbands and wives had lower positive affect and higher negative affect in moments when they reported more pain (within-person health sensitivity) and when their respective spouse reported more pain (within-partnership health sensitivity). Tests for moderation suggest that within-person, but not within-partnership, health sensitivity is lower at older ages and higher with more satisfying relationships. DISCUSSION: These findings empirically illustrate life-span notions that close relationships shape time-varying health-affect links and thus underscore the theoretical and practical utility of examining social-contextual antecedents of older adults' everyday affective 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".