The Interdependent Nature of Well-Being: Evidence From American and Japanese Spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated spousal interdependencies in well-being and the sources of these interdependencies among Americans and Japanese. We collected high-powered three-wave longitudinal and cross-sectional data from a wide age range of participants ( N s = 3,012 American couples aged 26–96 and 2,307 Japanese couples aged 24–76) and assessed a variety of well-being measures. Study 1 replicated previous findings that American spouses’ well-being was positively associated with each other. Studies 2a and 2b generalized the findings of Study 1 to Japanese spouses. Both Studies 1 and 2b showed conflicting results: There were effects of mutual influence and shared environmental factors’ influences on American and Japanese spouses’ well-being in a longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model when using the cross-lagged panel model, but not when using the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. These findings illustrate that the interdependent nature of well-being is an essential feature of American and Japanese married couples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".