Examining intra‐ and inter‐personal health effects of optimism and pessimism: The role of subjective well‐being in romantic couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent meta-analytic research suggests that the absence of pessimism could be a stronger predictor of physical health than the presence of optimism. The present study examined the role of subjective well-being in the effects of optimism and pessimism on physical health in romantic couples. It was hypothesized that pessimism would be more strongly associated with both well-being and health than optimism, intra- and interpersonally. Subjective well-being was also expected to explain variance in the associations between optimism, pessimism, and health. METHODS: A baseline sample of 153 opposite-sex couples completed various measures of subjective well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and depressive symptoms) and physical health (e.g., subjective health, sleep efficiency, physical symptoms, cold symptoms, and chronic illness). RESULTS: Results of actor-partner interdependence models showed that the absence of pessimism, but not the presence of optimism, was associated with better physical health at baseline and over time. Pessimism was also a stronger predictor than optimism of baseline levels in some indicators of subjective well-being. These effects were obtained intra- and interpersonally. Finally, subjective well-being explained variance in some of the effects of pessimism on levels of physical health. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".