Journal of Positive School Psychology
2022, Vol. 6, No. 2, 28 – 39
http://journalppw.com
A REVIEW ON PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING OF
COUPLES DURING FIRST SEVEN YEARS OF MARITAL
LIFE
S. Arul Prabhahar1, Dr. G. Ramanathan2, H. Kalaivani3, Dr. G. Raja Jerald
Selvakumar4
1
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, Tamilnadu. India.
ORCHID ID: 0000-0001-9766-3633
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Government Arts and Science College (Autonomous),
Coimbatore.
3
M.Sc Nursing Tutor, Bhubaneswar College of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS).
4
Assistant Professor, Dep. of Political Science, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Padur, Chennai.
Abstract
Health is influenced by marital status, and this relationship varies by time and/or place. Married people
live longer and are healthier than those who have never married, divorced, or been widowed. However,
not every wedding are created equally: unhappy weddings have fewer advantages than happy marriages.
Divorce rates have risen sharply over the globe. Despite the widespread belief that weddings improve
mental health, there is no proof that the advantages of wedding are due to the social function of marriage
rather than the qualities of those who marry. This review uses longitudinal analysis to compare those
who were "very happy" in marriage to those who were "pretty happy" in marriage, "not too happy" in
marriage, never married, divorced or separated, or widowed, using a nationally representative sample
of married couples and joining measures of marital status and marital happiness. Not just lifespan but
also well-being is key outcome factors when analyzing the connection among the marital status and
well-being. The goal of this research is to look at the links between marital status, health behaviors, and
illness in various couples, as well as see whether there are any gender disparities in those interactions.
We evaluate whether marriage improves mental health after adjusting for premarital rates of disorder
using a sample of 18, 21, and 24 year aged male and female who either stayed unmarried or got married
or remained married in 7 year duration. In addition, we investigated whether women gain more from
weddings than men in terms of mental health.
Keywords: Psychological well-being, marital happiness, marital status, mental health, longitudinal
analysis.
I.
INTRODUCTION
People's marital status has a major influence on
their wellbeing and lifespan. Unmarried people's
psychological health leads to be poorer than that
of their married individuals, according to a
series of researches. Many factors assist in the
greater well-being of married couples.
Individuals who are stronger more likely to be
married, whereas those who are less nutritious
are much more likely to get divorced or parted
from their spouses. Marriage also has a
protective influence on one's health and wellbeing, as married individuals benefit from
greater financial security, social support, and
psychological security. Stressful events, such as
marriage ending, are known to influence
wellness. People who have been separated or
have been bereaved may have changes in their
immune, hormonal, and neurological systems as
a result of marital dissolution [1].
Mental issues are closely linked to one's family
situation, including one's marital status and
whether or not one has children. Getting married
or living with a partner has been shown to
improve satisfaction with life and to be
connected with improved psychological health,
fewer depression symptoms, and a greater level
of well-being. [2].
29
Journal of Positive School Psychology
It has become more common for people to pay
attention to and be careful of what is going on in
the here and now [3]. Trait mindfulness is linked
to numerous signs of mental and interpersonal
health [4],[5] although quantifying feature
mindfulness without taking into consideration
the environment in which one's degree of
attentiveness is expressed may be difficult. No
matter how attentive a person is, he or she can't
be thoughtful all the moment or be aware in
every situation. Even more importantly, being
aware in some settings may have a greater effect
on one's psychological and interpersonal wellbeing than one's average propensity to be
attentive; hence, one's common inclination to be
mindful and may not always be clinically
meaningful.
though the link between the two has not been
confirmed. When it comes to marriage, those
who are stronger are more likely to get married
and continue to be married [9]. Married people
enjoy superior SRH (self-rated health) [10] and
lower death rates [11] as a consequence of their
marital status. Healthy habits are promoted;
dangerous activities are regulated and more
people have access to health insurance, and
social assistance and relationships are
strengthened [12]. The "buffering hypothesis,"
which says that people with good social
assistance are better able to deal with stress and
hence mitigate its well-being repercussions, is a
fundamental part of studies on the health and
lifespan advantages of marriage [13].
Mindfulness may have an essential influence on
a love relationship's mental and relational
health. For instance, being attentive while
waiting in line at a grocery shop is quite different
than being thoughtful when talking to coworkers
or standing in a queue at the grocery store. It is
rare for a relationship to be both a source of
pleasure and misery since it involves a higher
sense of interaction and connection than that of
other
social
circumstances.
Relational
awareness refers to the inclination to be attentive
in the setting of love relationships [6].
Partnership mindfulness seems to have a larger
positive link with good relationship quality than
trait mindfulness does, as well as a higher
negative connection with bad relationship
qualities, anxious connection, and avoidant
bonding, according to the studies.
III. MARITAL
HEALTH
Mental health is measured and protected in a
collective community. Up to the majority of
research was done in primarily the individual
civilizations and to our understanding; this study
is notable in that it is the first of its sort to have
explored well-analyzed occurrences in the
newly untouched terrain. The spillover impact of
work-family disputes is shown to be varied in
countries with a good history of marital
adjustment [7], such as the cultures that should
be recognized because of family commitments,
where employees are more likely to feel weary
and far less able to deal with pressure [8].
II. MARITAL STATUS AND HEALTH
Various researches have shown that married
persons had greater health than single ones, even
HAPPINESS
AND
Based on marital functionality, marriage may
have a positive or negative impact on wellness
[14]. Improved physical wellness [15],
improved SRH (self-rated health) [16], and
fewer physical illnesses are all linked to good
marital quality [17]. They discovered that
patients who had coronary artery bypass
transplantation had reduced death rates when
their marriages were in better condition.
Marriages of high quality, on the other hand,
may help to alleviate the effects of stress on the
body, while those of low quality may cause more
stress on an ongoing basis. Social stress, a
phrase used by [17], is a word used to describe
the physiological and mental effects of difficult
social communication. Marital stress is linked to
a worse prognosis for women with coronary
heart disease [18] and poor spouse conduct, such
as criticism or hostility, is connected with worse
wellness [16]. Wound healing was hindered in
an experimental context because of negative
marital relations [19]. Mental state may be
impacted by a couple's marital quality, as per
research. For example, [20] found that those
who had a bad relationship were more likely to
be depressed. People who leave troubled
relationships do better than those who stay in
them [21] or never join them in the initial place,
as per research: people who have never wedded
do better psychologically than those who are in
miserable relationships [22]. Successful
relationships may help alleviate stress, but poor
marriages may exacerbate it, according to these
new results. Table 1 shows how marital
30
S. Arul Prabhahar et al.
status/happiness and total joyfulness, both
separately and combined, are linked with the
wellbeing and death rates. Every one of those
models came with the entire control group.
Table 1 Differences in fair/poor well-being and death risk by marital status/happiness and
general happiness.
𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫/𝐏𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 − 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐛
Model 1
Model 2
𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐛
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Marital status/happiness(Very
happy marriage)
Never married
1.56 ***
1.14
1.14
1.09
Divorced/separated
1.84***
1.26**
1.16*
1.11
Widowed
1.24*
0.89+
1.17*
1.10
Pretty happy marriage
1.58***
1.26+
0.96
0.99*
Not too happy Marriage
2.20***
1.14
1.40*
1.28+
General happiness(very happy)
Pretty happy
1.99***
1.95***
1.14**
1.16**
Not happy
4.62***
4.35***
1.24***
1.22**
IV. THE
ROLE
HAPPINESS
OF
GENERAL
Relationships among pleasure and relationship
status, wellness and lifespan may be influenced
by general well-being. People who are joyful
tend to be stronger and live much longer [23].
It's also important to note that both marital joy
and total happiness and life fulfillment [24, 25]
are significantly linked to one another.
Researchers do not, however, know the degree
to which health and lifespan are influenced by
relationships among marriage and general
satisfaction. The impacts of marital status and
marital satisfaction on wellness and lifespan
may be explained by a person's overall degree of
satisfaction. If satisfaction in a wedding leads to
fulfillment in life or the other way around, then
the health advantages of joy in a wedding may
be attributed to general happiness. When it
comes to health, if marital and common joy has
unique processes, we may discover that marital
and overall joy have discrete, independent
consequences.
In addition to marital status and marital
satisfaction, wellness and lifespan are other key
factors that researchers take into account when
studying the overall population in the United
States. Elements that influence a person's
sociodemographic status comprise age, gender,
race, and parental status. SES (educational,
earnings, and job) and religious affiliation are
also taken into consideration. Possible
confounding
factors
include
marital
contentment, physical health, and life span.
Researchers have found significant differences
in wellness, death, and marriage rates among
geographic areas [26]. In addition to being a
proven wellness and death risk factor, SES is
also strongly linked to the relationship [27].
Lastly, a higher level of religiosity is linked to
better marital satisfaction and a greater chance
of getting engaged [28, 29].
V. INTENTION OF LIFE AND WELLBEING OUTCOMES
A eudaimonic model of mental well-being was
presented that included numerous variables.
"The sensations the following conduct in the
direction of, and congruent with, one's real
potential" [78] is a more exact definition of
eudaimonia. A person's eudaimonic viewpoint
may be characterized by the degree to which
they believe their life is meaningful, intended,
31
and direction. The goal in life is a facet of mental
well-being.
Mental well-being has a long history of health
advantages that have been thoroughly
established in the scientific literature. [79]
Symptoms of depression are more likely to
emerge in those who don't have a good sense of
direction in life, according to one study. The
greater goal in life also forecasts better
emotional rehabilitation from unpleasant
stimuli, explaining the impact of stressful life
experiences on bad consequences [80]. Sources
of stress may be seen as less challenging for
people who have a better sense of purpose, and
they may use appropriate coping mechanisms to
preserve their complete health [81].
Carers who had a better meaningful life were
less
likely
to
have
physical
and
emotional challenges while caring for a
companion with a functional disability in a
recent study of caregivers. Emotional caring
problems were also reduced when care receivers
had a greater sense of purpose in life [82].
Psychosocial resources provided by partner
carers’ and care receivers' self-reported reasons
to live seem to be relevant to the well-being and
well-being assessment in a dyadic situation.
Journal of Positive School Psychology
favorably associated with more effective
communication actions during couple disputes
and adversely associated with perceived and
reported emotional negativity during and after
partner argument [33]. Trait awareness is likely
to affect how individuals in relationships behave
and assess the association since it is linked to the
inclination to be aware of and pay attention to
what is happening in the current moment while
engaging with a loving relationship.
To be expected, the large majority of studies on
the subject of mindful awareness in intimate
relationships have relied on assessments of trait
mindfulness.
However,
as
previously
mentioned, trait mindfulness may vary
according to the type, making it a less than an
ideal sign of mindfulness in intimate
relationships. Research of awareness and loving
relationships might gain from incorporating
assessments of relationship awareness to gain
new ideas and lines of investigation.
VI. TRAIT
AND
RELATIONSHIP
MINDFULNESS IN RELATIONAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
There's indeed reason to believe that relationship
awareness may explain changes in the level of
good and negative relations in addition to those
related to trait mindfulness [34]. A sample of 20year-old college students in a loving relationship
was included in this study, and roughly 41% of
these individuals stated being in their present
loving relationship for less than a year. The
quality of a person's relationships may be
improved by practicing mindfulness, especially
in long-term partnerships [35]. Therefore, it is
significant to highlight that the average age of
individuals in this research was over 36, that
over 3 quarters of the partners in this research
indicate being wedded, and that the average
partnership duration of these partners was
approximately 12 years. Thus, the current
research is unusual in that it focuses on a group
of couples where awareness may have an even
greater influence on their relationship quality.
Mindfulness is connected to a wide range of
mental traits that anticipate better love
relationships. Trait mindfulness, for instance,
has a positive correlation with both empathetic
concern and the ability to take on new
perspectives [30]. Enhanced marital happiness
and a decreased likelihood of relationship
breakdown have been related to the trait of
mindfulness [31, 32]. People's approach to
dispute resolution with love partners may be
influenced by their innate awareness. Trait
mindfulness, for instance, is substantially and
The improvement of one's mental health is
linked to the practice of mindfulness as a habit.
People who have a high level of trait
mindfulness are more proficient at identifying
and modifying their psychological states to meet
their fundamental psychological demands [36].
For example, worrying, obsession, and the
hiding of thoughts and feelings are all connected
with depression and stress and are inconsistent
with awareness [37]. An extensive body of
research shows a substantial negative
As we become older, we tend to lose our sense
of meaning in life [83]. Numerous studies have
shown, however, that decreasing wellness is not
always linked to advancing years [84]. To better
understand how mental well-being in couples
may ease the pressure of a problematic marriage
relationship, it is necessary to study goals in life
in the context of marital partnerships.
32
S. Arul Prabhahar et al.
correlation among bad mind functioning, such as
depression and stress [38].
Many research on trait awareness concentrate on
its advantages outside of the setting of life of the
person, such as intimate relationships, despite
substantial evidence supporting its positive
effects on psychological wellbeing. Earlier
research has shown that loving relationships
have a distinct impact on psychological
functioning [39]. Mindfulness in loving
relationships may have a essential effect on
psychological health, however, studies that take
into account both characteristic and relational
awareness may shed light on this question.
VII.
INTERDEPENDENCY
IN
MINDFULNESS AND RELATIONAL
AND
THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL
OUTCOMES
For both the individual and their companion, a
person's personality qualities have a role [40].
Because of this, the link between characteristic
awareness, mental and relational health
probably stretches from one person to other.
Interpersonal mechanisms of characteristic
awareness have been previously shown in
research investigations. When a couple has
greater characteristic awareness, they are less
likely to withdraw from each other and more
likely to assist each other [41]. Couples' feelings
of support, reactivity, and overall marital
happiness are all positively and substantially
correlated with an individual's level of trait
mindfulness [42]. In another research, military
partners' marital quality and trait awareness
were linked [43]. Even though awareness is an
internal practice, there is proof that it may be
correctly assessed by others [44]. To summarize,
there is scientific proof to assist the suggestion
that a person's and their partner's mental and
relational well-being are linked to their
characteristic mindfulness. The very few
research employing an interpersonal method is
constrained by the lack of context-sensitive
assessments of awareness. There are still
questions about how being mindful in a loving
relationship affects one's own and one's
companion's mental and emotional health.
VIII. WELL-BEING AND
HEALTH INDICATORS
MENTAL
For instance, an individual feel of well-being
might be characterized as the mental balancing
point among his or her available resources and
problems [45]. The Office for National Statistics
in the United Kingdom (ONS) held a public
discussion on the issue via several forums to
produce national well-being measurements [46].
When asked, "What are the most important
aspects of life?" and what is well-being? The
most common replies are: Well-being was
defined as "Fitness", "Having excellent ties with
friends and family" and "Work satisfaction (and
financial stability)" [47]. Empirical research has
shown that well-being is correlated with
socioeconomic level [48]. In our research,
researchers were using a wide range of measures
to match the health of participants: a simplified
direct question about life happiness; the CASP12 multi-item quality of life rate; a
direct question about fulfillment with social
support networks; and the EURO-D levels of
depression rate. We'll go into further depth about
each of these three measurements in the sections
that follow. Controls in our studies include
wellness, education, and financial well-being
variables [49, 50].
During the first measure, the expressed Life,
researchers are concerned with how individuals
feel about the quality of their lives. To get this
information, you answer a direct question that
asks respondents to scale their level of
contentment with life on a range of zero to 10.
In terms of reliability and validity, this scale is
adequate [51, 52].
The CASP-12, or life quality rating, is the
second assessment [53], which is intended to
collect life quality in elder years. On a range of
1 (rarely) to 4 (often), participants indicate
whether they agree with twelve assertions
(never). The 12 questions cover 4 aspects of life:
control, autonomy, enjoyment, and selfrealization, yielding an overall index varying
from twelve to 48 (poor to the great quality of
life). Researchers scale it from Zero to Ten (poor
to the great quality of life).
The 3rd metric is expressed as Network
fulfillment. Respondents rate their contentment
with their social network on a range of zero to
ten (low to high fulfillment). When respondents
stated that they have no one with whom they
discuss issues or who is essential to them, they
were queried how pleased they were with this
reality.
33
Journal of Positive School Psychology
The EURO-D depressive rating [54] is the fourth
metric. It serves as a predictor of symptoms of
depression and incorporates features of delayed
psychological health. It is a reliable method of
comparing depressed symptoms throughout
European nations [55, 56]. Sadness, pessimism,
suicidality, guilty, sleepiness, enthusiasm,
irritation, hunger, exhaustion, attention,
pleasure, and tearfulness all contribute to the
EURO-D depression rating. Participants are
requested if every one of those parameters has
an indication. It yields an aggregate index that
ranges from zero (not sad) to twelve (very
unhappy) (very depressed). Researchers
normalize it to a range of zero (very depressed)
to ten (not depressed) and term it devoid of
depression symptoms. Figure 1 presented the
mean of the health metrics over a year in a
marriage partnership is presented. While
networking and life fulfillment retain largely
consistent as people get older, quality of life and
the absence of depressive symptoms indexes
diminish at an older age. Except for the absence
of a depressed symptoms index, wherein male
respondents had on average a 0.73 point higher
index than female respondents, the graphs for
men and women respondents are very
comparable.
Figure 1 Average health score and mental well-being measure for seven years
IX. ATTACHMENT AVOIDANCE AND
THE CONNECTION AMONG TOUCH
AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH
Attachment rejection is linked to greater levels
of sadness, tension, and somatic symptoms [57],
as well as a lesser level of positive everyday
impact [58]. These negative correlations also
apply to their companions that indicate higher
levels of depressive symptoms [59]. A touching
feel could help to explain these connections.
Attachment rejection could, for instance,
moderate the relationship between touching feel
and happiness. A person with poor attachment
rejection may have a positive relationship with
touch, whereas those with strong attachment
rejection may have a less favorable or even
negative relationship with the contact. The
theoretical justification for this forecast comes
from the assumption that far more avoidantly
connected people attempt to retain self-reliance
and individuality since they view others as
unreliable and trusted [60]. As a consequence,
they seek lesser connectedness in their
interactions [61] and are more contact averse
[62]. In contrast to more protected and anxiously
linked persons, those with greater attachment
rejection indicated no elevation in state secure
34
S. Arul Prabhahar et al.
attachment in an experimental situation where
their love companion was taught to contact them
[63].
Increasing evidence suggests, however, that
even if they have negative opinions toward
proximity, those who are more attachment
avoidant can gain from their companions' good
activities. They gain greater levels of support
from their companion, despite their tendency to
reject social help [64]. Furthermore, among
avoidantly linked people, pleasant connection
interactions with a romantic companion—such
as thinking positively about one's spouse or
sharing everyday productive thoughts with
them—forecast decreased bad effects [65].
Seeing a companion as thankful protects
avoidantly connected people from experiencing
lower relationship value [66]. Since contact feel
may be another kind of positive that might
enhance the well-being of avoidantly connected
individuals, a second theory is that attachment
rejection leads to less prevalent physical contact,
which explains why a connective rejection is
linked to worse mental well-being (a mediation
hypothesis).
X. NEGATIVE
INTERACTION
SYMPTOMS
AND
MARITAL
DEPRESSIVE
Adverse marital connection refers to how
critical, disappointed, unpleasant, or demanding
an individual perceives their companion [67]
and is more predictive of health than good parts
of the connection [68]. Negative marital
connections have been proven to have a negative
impact on well-being outcomes, such as
decreasing physical and psychological health
and raising death risk [68]. Stress and dispute
have deleterious consequences on psychological
health, as per the marital discord model of
depression [69], resulting in increased
depressive symptoms among married couples.
The majority of the early research was on
individual-level evaluations that linked bad
marital connections to depressed symptoms
[68]. Long-term studies have also discovered
that unfavorable marital connections have a
cumulative impact on a partner's health over a
period [70].
Dyadic techniques to explore the actor and
companion impact of poor marital connection on
healthcare outcomes, especially depressive
symptoms, are becoming more popular [71].
Partnership impacts are connections among the
membership of the dyad that is independent of
one's own effect [72]. Actor impacts are
connections within an individual, whereas
companion effects are interactions among
members of the dyad that are independent of
one's impact. [73] Investigated comparable
connections among wedding couples and
identified no indication of ones companion
marital fulfillment anticipating the other's
depression symptoms in one of the early dyadic
research. Eventual, [74] found that marital
pleasure has cross-spousal impacts on later
depressive symptoms in partners in long-term
relationships. The concurrent and longitudinal
relationships between unfavorable marital
connection and depression symptoms have
recently been established in research of middleaged and elder married persons. [75]
Demonstrated a link between unfavorable
marital connections and depressed indicators in
individuals and couples. Furthermore, [76]
discovered that individual and spousal views of
a bad marital relationship were linked to an
increase in depressive symptoms. The
established cross-spousal impacts may be due to
couples' sensitivity to everyone's sentiments and
activities. As a consequence, dyadic evaluations
of a marital connection play a significant role in
impacting psychological health, especially with
lengthy connections. Figure 2 shows the use of
dyadic actor partner interdependence methods to
model the actor and partner impacts of negative
marital interaction on depressive symptoms.
35
Journal of Positive School Psychology
Figure 2 Hypothesized model representing the actor and companions impacts of negative
marital connection on depressive symptoms and the mediation effect of intention in life at the
actor and companion levels.
There is a definite link among unpleasant marital
connection and depressed symptoms, and this
connection is harmful to couples' physical
wellbeing and other parts of functioning,
especially as they get elder [77]. To reduce the
dyadic impact of bad marital connection on
depressive symptoms and associated health
consequences, it's critical to look at prospective
possible areas.
XI. CONCLUSION
Researchers
analyzed
how
relational
mindfulness was associated with self and
companion mental health functioning and
relational health while controlling for
characteristic awareness in this research. The
interpersonal relationships between partnership
mindfulness and relational outcomes discovered
in years support the idea that one's interior state
of mindfulness emerges in actions regarding
one's romantic partner. People who remain
single had lower levels of depression and
drinking issues over the seven years analyzed,
whereas those who marry have lower rates of
depression and alcohol issues. Even though
some of the advantages of marriage arise from
the fact that few depressed girls are more likely
to marry, being married and remaining married
improves mental wellbeing after controlling for
previous phases of mental health. Although
some of the advantages of marriage arise from
the fact that few depressed girls are more likely
to marry, being married and remaining married
improves
psychological
wellbeing after
controlling for previous phases of mental health.
However, they had a strong inclination to have
less physical contact with their companions.
This was one of the main reasons they reported
lower levels of happiness than individuals with
reduced attachment
rejection.
Because
individuals gained from touching despite their
unfavorable thoughts toward it, discovering
ways to promote openness to affectionate
contact among those who are more prone to
attachment rejection is an interesting area for
future research.
S. Arul Prabhahar et al.
REFERENCES
[1] Kim, A., Lee, J.A. and Park, H.S., 2018.
Health behaviors and illness according to
marital status in middle-aged Koreans.
Journal of Public Health, 40(2), pp.e99e106.
[2] Becker, C., Kirchmaier, I. and Trautmann,
S.T., 2019. Marriage, parenthood and
social network: Subjective well-being and
mental health in old age. PloS one, 14(7),
p.e0218704.
[3] Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The
benefits of being present: Mindfulness and
its role in psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
[4] Bowlin, S. L., & Baer, R. A. (2012).
Relationships between mindfulness, selfcontrol,
and
psychological
functioning.Personality and Individual
Differences, 52(3), 411–415.
[5] Lenger, K. A., Gordon, C. L., & Nguyen,
S. P. (2017). Intra-individual and crosspartner associations between the five facets
of
mindfulness
and
relationship
satisfaction. Mindfulness, 8(1), 171–180.
[6] Kimmes, J. G., Jaurequi, M. E., May, R.
W., Srivastava, S., & Fincham, F. D.
(2017). Mindfulness in the context of
romantic relationships: Initial development
and validation of the Relationship
Mindfulness Measure. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy Advance online
publication
[7] Liu, H., Ngo, H. Y., and Cheung, F. M.
(2016). Work-family enrichment and
marital satisfaction among Chinese
couples: a crossover-spillover perspective.
Int. J. Stress Manag. 23, 209–231
[8] Brough, P., and O’Driscoll, M. P. (2005).
“Work-family conflict and stress,” in
Research Companion to Organizational
Health Psychology, eds A. Antoniou, and
C. Cooper, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publisher), 346–365.
[9] Fu, H., & Goldman, N. (1996).
Incorporating health into models of
marriage choice: Demographic and
sociological perspectives. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 740–758.
[10] Kane, A. A. (2013). Marital status and selfrated health. Master’s thesis, San Diego
State University, Health, and Human
Services.
36
[11] Liu, H., & Umberson, D. J. (2008). The
times they are a changin’: Marital status
and health differentials from 1972 to 2003.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
49(3), 239–253.
[12] Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010).
Advances in families and health research in
the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 72(3), 743–761.
[13] Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of
social interaction: Impact on psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(5), 1097–1108.
[14] Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L.
(2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 472–503.
[15] Miller, R. B., Hollist, C. S., Olsen, J., &
Law, D. (2013). Marital quality and health
over 20 years: A growth curve analysis.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(3),
667–680.
[16] Bookwala, J. (2005). The role of marital
quality in physical health during the mature
years. Journal of Aging and Health, 17(1),
85–104.
[17] Rook, K. S. (1990). Parallels in the study
of social support and social strain. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1),
118–132.
[18] Orth-Gomer, K., Wamala, S. P., Horsten,
M.,
Schenck-Gustafsson,
K.,
Schneiderman, N., & Mittleman, M.A.
(2000). Marital stress worsens prognosis in
women with coronary heart disease: The
Stockholm Female Coronary Risk Study.
JAMA, 284(23), 3008–3014.
[19] Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L.
(2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.
Psychological Bulletin,127(4), 472–503.
[20] Ross, C. E. (1995). Reconceptualizing
marital status as a continuum of social
attachment. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57(1), 129–140.
[21] Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005).
Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term,
low-quality marriages on well-being.
Social Forces, 84(1), 451–471.
[22] Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of
marriage arrived? A contemporary
examination of gender, marriage, and
psychological well-being. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 44(4), 470.
[23] Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy
people live longer: Subjective well-being
contributes to health and longevity.
37
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
Journal of Positive School Psychology
Applied Psychology: Health and WellBeing, 3(1), 1–43
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C.
(2007). Marital quality and personal wellbeing: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 69(3), 576–593.
Carr, D., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C.,
& Schwarz, N. (2014). Happy marriage,
happy life? Marital quality and subjective
well-being in later life. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 76(5), 930–948.
Fenelon,
A.
(2013).
Geographic
divergence in mortality in the United
States. Population and Development
Review, 39(4), 611–634.
Elo, I. T. (2009). Social class differentials
in health and mortality: Patterns and
explanations in comparative perspective.
Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 553–572.
Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families,
1999–2009: A relational spirituality
framework. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 72(4), 805–827.
Hummer, R. A., Rogers, R. G., Nam, C. B.,
& Ellison, C. G. (1999). Religious
involvement and US adult mortality.
Demography, 36(2), 273–285.
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007).
Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness
and emotion repertoires in intimate
relationships. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 33(4), 464–481.
Jones, K. C., Welton, S. R., Oliver, T. C.,
& Thoburn, J. W. (2011). Mindfulness,
spousal
attachment,
and
marital
satisfaction: A mediated model. The
Family Journal, 19(4), 357–361.
Saavedra, M. C., Chapman, K. E., &
Rogge, R. D. (2010). Clarifying links
between attachment and relationship
quality: Hostile conflict and mindfulness as
moderators. Journal of Family Psychology,
24(4), 380–390
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E.,
Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007).
The role of mindfulness in romantic
relationship satisfaction and responses to
relationship stress. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500.
Kimmes, J. G., Jaurequi, M. E., May, R.
W., Srivastava, S., & Fincham, F. D.
(2017). Mindfulness in the context of
romantic relationships: Initial development
and validation of the Relationship
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
Mindfulness Measure. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy.
Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P., &
Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences
of mindfulness and romantic relationships:
A theoretical model and research agenda.
Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 21(1), 29–49.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The
benefits of being present: Mindfulness and
its role in psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005).
Cognitive vulnerability to emotional
disorders. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology.
Tomlinson, E. R., Yousaf, O., Vittersø, A.
D., & Jones, L. (2018). Dispositional
mindfulness and psychological health: A
systematic review. Mindfulness, 9(1), 22–
43.
Whisman, M. A., & Baucom, D. H. (2012).
Intimate
relationships
and
psychopathology. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 4–13.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The
analysis of data from dyads and groups. In
H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook
of research methods in social and
personality psychology (pp. 451–477).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E.,
Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007).
The role of mindfulness in romantic
relationship satisfaction and responses to
relationship stress. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500.
Williams, A. M., & Cano, A. (2014).
Spousal mindfulness and social support in
couples with chronic pain. The Clinical
Journal of Pain, 30(6), 528–535.
Zamir, O., Gewirtz, A. H., & Zhang, N.
(2017). Actor–partner associations of
mindfulness and marital quality after
military deployment. Family Relations,
66(3), 412–424
May, L. M., & Reinhardt, K. M. (2018).
Self-other agreement in the assessment of
mindfulness
using
the
Five-Facet
Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness,
9(1), 105–116.
Dodge R, Daly A, Huyton J, Sanders L.
The challenge of defining wellbeing.
38
S. Arul Prabhahar et al.
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
International Journal of Wellbeing. 2012;
2: 222–235.
Matheson J. Measuring What Matters:
National Statistician‘s Reflections on the
National Debate on Measuring National
Well-being. London: Office for National
Statistics. 2011.
Evans J. Findings from the National Wellbeing Debate. London: Office for National
Statistics. 2011.
Pinquart M, So¨rensen S. Influences of
Socioeconomic Status, Social Network,
and Competence on Subjective Well-Being
in Later Life: A Meta-Analysis.
Psychology and Aging. 2000; 15: 187–224.
Diener E, Suh E. Measuring Quality of
Life: Economic, Social, and Subjective
Indicators. Social Indicators Research.
1997; 40: 189–21.
Knesebeck OVD, Wahrendorf M, Hyde M,
Siegrist J. Socio-economic position and
quality of life among older people in 10
European countries: results of the SHARE
study. Ageing and Society. 2007; 27: 269–
284.
Pavot W, Diener E. The Affective and
Cognitive Context of Self-Reported
Measures of Subjective Well- Being.
Social Indicators Research. 1993; 28: 1–20.
Beckie TM, Hayduk LA. Measuring
Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research.
1997; 42: 21–39.
Hyde M, Wiggins RD, Higgs P, Blane DB.
A measure of quality of life in early old
age: The theory, development and
properties of a needs satisfaction model
(CASP-19). Aging & Mental Health. 2003;
7: 186– 194.
Prince MJ, Reischies F, Beekman ATF,
Fuhrer R, Jonker C, Kivela S-L, et al.
Development of the EURO–D scale–a
European Union initiative to compare
symptoms of depression in 14 European
centres. British Journal of Psychiatry.
1999; 174: 330–338.
Castro-Costa E, Dewey M, Stewart R,
Banerjee S, Huppert F, Mendonca-Lima C,
et al. Ascertaining late-life depressive
symptoms in Europe: an evaluation of the
survey version of the EURO-D scale in 10
nations. The SHARE project. International
Journal of Methods in Psychiatric
Research. 2008; 17: 12– 29.
Prince MJ, Beekman ATF, Deeg DJH,
Fuhrer R, Kivela S-L, Lawlor BA, et al.
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
Depression symptoms in late life assessed
using the EURO–D scale. Effect of age,
gender and marital status in 14 European
centres. British Journal of Psychiatry.
1999; 174: 339–345
Kafetsios, K., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006).
Attachment, social support and well-being
in young and older adults. Journal of
Health Psychology, 11(6), 863–876.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan,
J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxietyprovoking situation: The role of attachment
styles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(3), 434–446.
Whiffen, V. E. (2005). The role of partner
characteristics in attachment insecurity and
depressive
symptoms.
Personal
Relationships, 12(3), 407–423.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An
attachment theory perspective on closeness
and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A.
Aron(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 163–187) Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mashek, D. J., & Sherman, M. D. (2004).
Desiring less closeness with intimate
others. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp.
343–356). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ozolins, A., & Sandberg, C. (2009).
Development of a multifactor scale
measuring the psychological dimensions of
touch avoidance. International Journal of
Psychology, 3, 33–56.
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017).
Affectionate touch to promote relational,
psychological, and physical well-being in
adulthood: A theoretical model and review
of the research.Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 21(3), 228–252.
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Simpson, J.
A., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). “All or
nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the
curvilinear effects of partner support.
Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology, 108(3), 450–475.
Stanton, S. C. E., Campbell, L., & Pink, J.
C. (2017). Benefits of positive relationship
experiences for avoidantly attached
individuals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 113(4), 568–588.
Park, Y., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., &
Lemay, E. P. (2019). Saying “thank you”:
Partners’ expressions of gratitude protect
39
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
Journal of Positive School Psychology
relationship satisfaction and commitment
from the harmful effects of attachment
insecurity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,117(4), 773–806.
Schuster, T. L., Kessler, R. C., & Aseltine,
R. H. (1990). Supportive interactions,
negative interactions, and depressed mood.
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology, 18(3), 423–438.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L.
(2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 472–503.
Beach, S. R. H., Katz, J., Kim, S., & Brody,
G. H. (2003). Prospective effects of marital
satisfaction on depressive symptoms in
established marriages: A dyadic model.
Journal
of Social and Personal
Relationships, 20(3), 355–371.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D.
A., Liu, H., & Needham, B. (2006). You
make me sick: Marital quality and health
over the life course. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 47(1), 1–16.
Carr, D., & Utz, R. L. (2020). Families in
later life: A decade in review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 82(1), 346–363.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The
actor–partner interdependence model: A
model of bidirectional effects in
developmental
studies.International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2),
101–109.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Harold, G.
T., & Osborne, L. N. (1997). Marital
satisfaction and depression: Different
causal relationships for men and women?
Psychological Science, 8(5), 351–356.
Beach, S. R. H., Sandeen, E., & O’Leary,
K. D. (1990). Depression in marriage: A
model for etiology and treatment. New
York: Guilford Press.
Kwak, M., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2020).
Relationships between negative exchanges
and depressive symptoms in older couples:
The moderating roles of care and gender.
Journal
of
Social
and
PersonalRelationships, 37(3), 843–864.
Bulanda, J. R., Yamashita, T., & Brown, J.
S. (2020). Marital quality, gender, and
later-life depressive symptom trajectories.
Journal of 8 E. IRANI ET AL Women &
Aging. Advance online publication.
Wickrama, K. A. S., Lorenz, F. O., Conger,
R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). Marital
quality and physical illness: A latent
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 59(1), 143–155.
Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology
of individualis. New York, NY: Praeger.
Wood, A. M., & Joseph, S. (2010). The
absence of positive psychological
(eudemonic) well-being as a risk factor for
depression: A ten yearcohort study. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 122(3), 213–217.
Schaefer, S. M., Morozink Boylan, J., van
Reekum, C. M., Lapate, R. C.,Norris, C. J.,
Ryff, C. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2013).
Purpose in life predicts better emotional
recovery from negative stimuli. PLoS
One,8(11), e80329.
Kim, E. S., Delaney, S. W., & Kubzansky,
L. D. (2019). Sense of purpose in life and
cardiovascular
disease:
Underlying
mechanisms and future directions. Current
Cardiology Reports, 21(11), 135.
Polenick, C. A., Renn, B. N., & Birditt, K.
S. (2018). Dyadic effects of depressive
symptoms on medical morbidity in middleaged and older couples. Health
Psychology, 37(1), 28–36.
Hill, P. L., Schultz, L. H., Jackson, J. J., &
Andrews, J. A. (2019). Parentchild conflict
during elementary school as a longitudinal
predictor of sense of purpose in emerging
adulthood. Journal of Youth
and
Adolescence, 48(1), 145–153.
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009).
Purpose in life as a system that creates and
sustains health and well-being: An
integrative, testable theory. Review of
General Psychology, 13(3), 242–251.