PHYSICAL INTIMACY IN DAILY LIVES OF OLDER ROMANTIC COUPLES: LINKS WITH MOMENTARY AFFECT AND DAILY CORTISOL LEVELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physical intimacy is assumed to benefit well-being through stress-buffering and mood-improving processes. Although partnered older adults often report wishing for and experiencing physical intimacy, inquiries about how intimacy is linked to affect and stress in older couples’ daily lives remain scarce. We examined self-report and salivary cortisol data from 120 German couples (Mage= 71.6, SDage= 5.94) obtained up to seven times per day over seven consecutive days. In moments when participants experienced more physical intimacy, women reported less negative affect, and men more positive affect. Experiencing more overall physical intimacy was associated with more positive affect and less negative affect in women, and lower daily cortisol in men. More overall intimacy wished was related to more negative affect in women and men, and to higher daily cortisol in men. We conclude that physical intimacy relates to indicators of well-being in older couples’ daily lives and consider routes for future inquiry.
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".