Having a Good Time Together: The Role of Companionship in Older Couples’ Everyday Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Companionship (i.e., enjoyable shared activities) is associated with higher emotional and relational well-being. However, the role of companionship for emotional well-being and relationship satisfaction in older couples' everyday life is not well understood. This article studies time-varying associations of companionship with emotional and relational well-being as older couples engage in their everyday life. METHODS: Participants provided three data points a day over 7 days using electronic surveys that were simultaneously completed by both partners. A total of 118 older heterosexual couples reported momentary companionship, positive and negative affect, and closeness. Data were analyzed using an intensive longitudinal dyadic score model. RESULTS: Couples with higher average companionship showed lower overall negative affect, more overall positive affect, and higher overall closeness. During moments of elevated momentary companionship, partners reported more positive affect, less negative affect, and higher closeness. Regarding between-couple partner differences, i.e., when the female partner's momentary companionship was higher on average than the male partner's momentary companionship, the female partner also showed less negative affect, more positive affect, and higher closeness than the male partner. During moments in which the female partner's momentary companionship was higher than the male partner's momentary companionship, the female partner showed less negative affect, more positive affect, and higher closeness than the male partner. DISCUSSION: Older couples show a consistent link between companionship and emotional well-being and closeness in everyday life emphasizing the importance of studying companionship in close relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".