Physical Intimacy in Older Couples’ Everyday Lives: Its Frequency and Links With Affect and Salivary Cortisol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical intimacy is important for communicating affection in romantic relationships. Theoretical and empirical work highlights linkages between physical intimacy, affect, and physiological stress among young and middle-aged adults, but not older adults. We examine physical intimacy and its associations with positive and negative affect and cortisol levels in the daily lives of older couples. METHODS: We applied actor-partner multilevel models to repeated daily-life assessments of physical intimacy (experienced and wished) and affect obtained 6 times a day over 7 consecutive days from 120 older heterosexual German couples (Mage = 71.6, SDage = 5.94). Physiological stress was indexed as total daily cortisol output, the area under the curve with respect to ground (AUCg). RESULTS: Physical intimacy experienced and wished were reported at the vast majority of occasions, but to different degrees at different times. Within persons, in moments when participants experienced more physical intimacy, older women reported less negative affect, whereas older men reported more positive affect. Between persons, higher overall levels of physical intimacy experienced were associated with higher positive affect and less negative affect among women and with lower daily cortisol output among men. A stronger wish for intimacy was related to more negative affect among both women and men, and to higher daily cortisol output among men. DISCUSSION: Physical intimacy is linked with mood and stress hormones in the daily life of older couples. We consider routes for future inquiry on physical intimacy among older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".