Prospective impacts of co-rumination on depression, anxiety, and relationship satisfaction within adult romantic couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Co-rumination can significantly affect well-being yet remains understudied in adult romantic relationships. We aimed to examine how corumination in adult couples impacts two forms of emotional distress (anxiety and depression) and relationship satisfaction over a 15-20 week follow-up. We also investigated whether effects persisted when controlling important covariates (e.g., emotional stability) and explored gender differences. Methods: Longitudinal path analyses were used to analyze data from 960 romantic couples (M age = 38.3, SD = 6.77 years) recruited through Qualtrics Survey Panels and homeschooling groups. Couples completed two survey waves during Winter/Spring 2021. Each partner completed measures of co-rumination at baseline, and of depression, anxiety, relationship satisfaction, and emotional stability at baseline and follow-up. Results: Dyadic co-rumination predicted significant increases in both emotional distress measures, but not relationship satisfaction, at follow-up when controlling baseline levels. Effects persisted when controlling covariates. While co-rumination predicted significant increases in depression in women but not men, formal tests of gender moderation were non-significant. No evidence of gender differences was found for co-rumination predicting anxiety or relationship satisfaction. Discussion: Results suggest couples should be counseled to limit coruminative discussions to minimize emotional distress. Reducing adult couples’ co-rumination is unlikely to lessen relationship satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".