Can you please help me with my article

Happy Marriage, Happy Life? Marital Quality and Subjective Well-Being in Later Life

Deborah Carr, Vicki A. Freedman*, Jennifer C. Cornman**, and Norbert Schwarz***

Department of Sociology and Institute for Health, Health Care Policy & Aging Research, Rutgers —The State University of New Jersey, 26 Nichol Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901 ([email protected])

*Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104

**Jennifer Cornman Consulting, 113 Chapin Pl., Granville, OH 43023

***Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, 3620 S. McClintock Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061

Abstract

The authors examined associations between marital quality and both general life satisfaction and

experienced (momentary) well-being among older husbands and wives, the relative importance of

own versus spouse’s marital appraisals for well-being, and the extent to which the association

between own marital appraisals and well-being is moderated by spouse’s appraisals. Data are from

the 2009 Disability and Use of Time daily diary supplement to the Panel Study of Income

Dynamics (N = 722). One’s own marital satisfaction is a sizable and significant correlate of life

satisfaction and momentary happiness; associations do not differ significantly by gender. The

authors did not find a significant association between spouse’s marital appraisals and own well-

being. However, the association between husband’s marital quality and life satisfaction is buoyed

when his wife also reports a happy marriage, yet flattened when his wife reports low marital

quality. Implications for understanding marital dynamics and well-being in later life are discussed.

Keywords

actor–partner independence models; daily diary methods; experienced well-being; gender differences; happiness; life satisfaction; marital quality; older adults

The protective effects of marriage for physical and emotional well-being are widely

documented (Carr & Springer, 2010). However, recent research shows that these effects are

conditional upon the quality of the marriage; problematic marriages take an emotional toll,

whereas high-quality marriages provide benefits, especially for women (Proulx, Helms, &

Buehler, 2007) and older adults (Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006).

Although the positive association between marital quality and well-being is well established,

several important issues remain unexplored. First, most such studies have focused on

negative aspects of psychological functioning, especially depressive symptoms (Bookwala,

2012). Studies that have focused on positive aspects of well-being typically have used

decontextualized and general life satisfaction measures (Whisman, Uebelacker, Tolejko,

NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2014 October 1; 76(5): 930–948. doi:10.1111/jomf.12133.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Chatav, & Meckelvie, 2006) rather than momentary measures of positive mood that may be

less susceptible to response bias.

Second, most studies have focused on only one spouse’s marital appraisals and have not

considered that both own and spouse’s appraisals may contribute independently to well-

being (i.e., actor vs. partner effects; Cook & Kenney, 2005). Although mounting research

suggests that one spouse’s marital (dis)satisfaction may affect the other partner’s well-being,

such studies typically have focused on young or midlife persons (Beach, Katz, Kim, &

Brody, 2003; Whisman, Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004). Third, we know of no studies that

have explored the combined influences of both partners’ marital appraisals on well-being.

Older spouses’ marital appraisals are correlated only modestly (r < .50 in the present study;

see also Bulanda, 2011; Carr & Boerner, 2009; Cohen, Geron, & Farchi, 2009); thus, it is

plausible that spouses’ appraisals as well as convergences (or divergences) therein may have

independent associations with well-being. The protective effects of marital satisfaction on

emotional well-being may be amplified when one’s spouse also is satisfied with the

marriage, whereas the association may be dampened or even reversed when one’s partner is

dissatisfied. An exploration of the multiplicative influences of “his” and “her” marital

assessments on one’s well-being will shed light on complex associations between marital

dynamics and emotional well-being in later life.

Thus, in this study we explored the distinctive ways that both own and spouse’s marital

quality appraisals are associated with two aspects of older adults’ subjective well-being: (a)

evaluations of one’s life in general (i.e., global life satisfaction) and (b) how one experiences

life moment to moment (i.e., happiness during randomly sampled activities on the day prior

to interview). Data were from the 2009 Disability and Use of Time (DUST) supplement to

the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which includes 24-hour time diaries capturing

activities and emotions experienced on the previous day. Using these data obtained from

older married couples, we explored the following four areas: (a) associations between

marital quality and well-being for husbands and wives; (b) differences in how own (“actor”)

and spouse’s (“partner”) marital appraisals are associated with well-being; (c) the extent to

which associations between marital quality appraisals and well-being persist net of

demographic, health, socioeconomic status, and characteristics of the target day (e.g., day of

week, activity); and (d) the extent to which the associations between one’s own marital

appraisals and well-being are moderated by a spouse’s appraisals.

Understanding later life marriage is an important pursuit given current demographic trends.

The proportion of adults age 65 and older is projected to increase, from 13% in 2010 to

nearly 20% in 2030 (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2012). Marital

quality has far-reaching implications for the health and well-being of older adults; it is a

well-documented buffer against the health-depleting effects of later life stressors such as

caregiving (Bookwala, 2012), and is a critical resource as couples manage difficult decisions

regarding their end-of-life health care (Carr, Boerner, & Moorman, 2013).

Carr et al. Page 2

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Background

Marital Quality and Subjective Well-Being Among Older Adults

Marital quality is positively associated with subjective well-being, and this association is

typically stronger among women than men (Bookwala, 2012; Jackson, Miller, Oka, &

Henry, 2014; Proulx et al., 2007; Whisman, 2001). However, most studies have examined

newlyweds, young couples, or those with children living in the home (Bookwala, 2012;

Whisman, 2001). Therefore, the strong association between marital quality and well-being

among women relative to men may reflect distinctive aspects of marital roles and relations

in young and mid-adulthood. Feminist writings dating back to Jesse Bernard (1972) suggest

that marriage and intimate relationships are more central to women’s identities, and more

consequential for their overall well-being relative to men, because women typically

“specialize” in emotion work and nurturing roles such as that of spouse or parent, whereas

their husbands specialize in paid employment outside the home (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013).

Women may feel responsible for resolving marital problems and ensuring that the couple

maintains a good marriage for the sake of the children (Beach et al., 2003; Davila, Karney,

Hall, & Bradbury, 2003; Dehle & Weiss, 1998). Some scholars argue further that women

traditionally have had less power and status in marriage than men and thus have a greater

emotional investment in maintaining a healthy relationship (Bulanda, 2011).

Among older adults, the gendered roles and relations established earlier in the life course

may shift or converge, creating a context in which the association between marital

satisfaction and well-being is similar for husbands and wives. First, as spouses age, their

social networks beyond the marital dyad may change such that marriage becomes an equally

salient source of well-being for both men and women. As they age, older men (and women,

to a lesser extent) exit full-time employment, reduce social contact with former colleagues,

and increase interactions with their spouse (Kulik, 2002). Contact with friends and siblings

also may decline as some die, whereas others may experience health declines or caregiving

duties that limit their social engagement (Dykstra & Gierveld, 2004). Social networks also

may contract because of conscious efforts on the part of older adults. As older adults’ future

time horizons become more limited, they may consciously limit their social networks and

focus on a small subset of their closest relationships (Carstensen, 1991). As such, close ties

with a spouse may be particularly salient to both older husbands’ and wives’ overall well-

being (Lang, 2001).

Second, developmental and role changes over the life course may contribute to a

convergence in the salience of marital quality for husbands’ and wives’ well-being.

Theoretical writings propose that a gendered “role crossover” occurs at midlife and later,

whereby men become more oriented toward family and affiliation and less oriented toward

power and agency, especially after retiring and leaving full-time employment. Older women,

by contrast, may place an increased emphasis on agency and self-fulfillment, and their

identities and well-being become less closely tied to their relationships with others

(Loscocco & Walzer, 2013). Thus, the relative importance of agency versus affiliation for

men and women may converge in later life.

Carr et al. Page 3

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

These psychological shifts are closely tied to shifts in social roles; when older men are

retired and women’s daily care of dependent children has subsided, spouses typically

experience greater role equity (Hagedoorn et al., 2006; Kulik, 2002). Whereas in younger

couples wives may take responsibility for and solve marital problems, as long-term

marriages persist men may “catch up” and may feel equally responsible for and become

equally invested in the marital relationship, especially as paid work obligations absorb less

of their time (Beach et al., 2003). Consistent with the assumption that the importance of

marriage to husbands’ and wives’ overall well-being may converge in later life, several

small, nonrepresentative studies of married older adults in the United States have found no

gender differences in the association between marital quality and well-being (Quirouette &

Pushkar-Gold, 1992; Whisman et al., 2006). Our first aim was to assess gender-specific

associations between marital quality and well-being among a nationally representative

sample of older spouses; we expected that the magnitude and direction of these associations

will be similar for men and women.

Marital Quality and Global Versus Experienced Subjective Well-Being

Most research on the association between marital quality and subjective well-being has

focused on negative outcomes, typically, depressive symptoms (Bookwala, 2012; Fincham,

Beach, Harold, & Osborne, 1997; Whisman et al., 2004). Ryff and Singer (1998) argued for

the value of focusing on positive outcomes also. Older persons who score very low on

indicators of positive psychological functioning, such as life satisfaction or happiness, may

be at an elevated risk of major depression if confronted with additional life stressors. By

contrast, emotional well-being is a resource on which older adults may draw as they cope

with aging-related stressors, including physical declines, sensory impairment, and

caregiving challenges (Bookwala, 2012). Finally, older adults are believed to have a

cognitive bias whereby they attend to positive and avoid or understate negative experiences,

sentiments, and recollections (Charles, Mather & Carstensen, 2003). Therefore, indicators of

positive aspects of well-being may offer a more accurate portrayal of older adults’ overall

psychological health.

An increasing amount of research is exploring associations between marital quality and

positive psychological outcomes, yet most studies thus far have focused on general

indicators such as global life satisfaction (Cohen et al., 2009; Glenn & Weaver, 1981).

Scholars of subjective well-being have called for heightened attention to an alternative

measure: experienced well-being, or the moment-to-moment reports of how one is feeling

(Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2006). Some researchers consider these

measures an improvement over global, decontextualized measures such as life satisfaction,

which may be influenced by errors in recollection, recall bias, and other cognitive

processing bias errors (Schwarz & Strack, 1999).

Thus, we focused on both global and momentary measures of well-being. Global life

satisfaction is a relatively stable orientation and is not affected by transient mood. It captures

how people evaluate their lives relative to some standard, such as their expectation for how

life should be (Schwarz & Strack, 1999). By contrast, momentary measures of experienced

well-being are assessments of lives as individuals live them. The two measures are highly

Carr et al. Page 4

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

correlated, yet life satisfaction is more responsive to enduring markers of success (e.g.,

education), whereas experienced well-being is more responsive to contemporaneous

activities and immediate circumstances (Kahneman et al., 2006). It is plausible that each

could relate differently to marital quality (George, 2010); for example, frequent arguments

with one’s spouse, or a spouse’s urgings to take one’s medications, might cause a

momentary spike in unhappiness but may also provide a feeling of being cared for, which

may enhance one’s overall satisfaction. We evaluated the associations between men’s and

women’s marital quality and two aspects of well-being: (a) life satisfaction and (b)

momentary happiness.

His and Hers Marital Quality Appraisals: Evaluating Actor and Partner Effects

To date, most studies of the implications of later life marriage have focused on one

individual within the marital dyad, “despite the importance of relationship interdependencies

… to the study of aging” (Windsor, Ryan, & Smith, 2009, p. 586). This limitation is due in

part to traditional models of data collection in which one person answers survey questions

on his or her perceived relationship quality and well-being (Carr & Springer, 2010).

However, husbands and wives do not necessarily view their marriages in similar ways;

marital quality assessments are typically correlated only modestly (r < .50), even in long-

term relationships (Bulanda, 2011; Carr & Boerner, 2009; Cohen et al., 2009). As a

consequence, few studies have investigated whether older adults’ subjective well-being is a

function of one’s own marital appraisals, one’s spouse’s appraisal, or a product of the two.

Over the past decade, studies have begun to explore actor–partner effects, or the extent to

which one individual’s experiences or traits affect other members of one’s social network

(Cook & Kenny, 2005). For example, if one partner is dissatisfied with the marriage, he or

she could act negatively toward the spouse by criticizing or withdrawing affection.

Conversely, happily married persons may be motivated to provide support and

encouragement to their partner, thereby enhancing their partner’s happiness and well-being.

Thus, one partner’s marital (dis)satisfaction may be linked to the emotional well-being of

the other.

To date, studies of the marital dyad have yielded inconclusive findings. Several have found

that a spouse’s physical and emotional health are strongly associated with one’s own well-

being (see Bookwala, 2012, for a review), yet comparable patterns have not been detected

with regard to marital quality and well-being. A study of married parents of teenage children

found that one partner’s marital appraisals affected the other spouse’s depressive symptoms

(Beach et al., 2003), and a study of newlywed couples found no evidence of partner effects

(Fincham et al., 1997). These results suggest that partner effects may become evident only in

longer term marriages, in which the partners are knowledgeable about and sensitive to

fluctuations in one another’s attitudes and feelings. To evaluate whether partner effects are

evident in long-term marriages among older adults, we took advantage of the couple-based

design of the Disability and Use of Time (DUST) daily diary supplement (Freedman &

Cornman, 2012) to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID; Hill, 1992) and evaluated

whether spousal marital appraisals are associated with one’s subjective well-being,

independent of one’s own marital appraisals.

Carr et al. Page 5

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

The Multiplicative Effects of His and Her Appraisals

Although subjective well-being may respond directly and independently to a spouse’s

marital happiness, a straightforward assessment of actor and partner effects does not

necessarily capture the complex interactions between the two. A mounting body of research,

typically laboratory based studies, documents the processes through which husbands and

wives independently respond to conflicts or joys in marriage and the reactions that one

partner’s response elicits from the other. These dynamic processes of action and reaction

may have powerful implications for overall well-being. For example, studies of dyadic

coping and communication reveal the varied ways that couples, especially older couples

managing health problems, might navigate such challenges (Holley, Haase, & Levenson,

2013; Revenson, Kayser, & Bodenmann, 2005). Such examples provide a foundation for

investigating statistical interactions between own and spouse’s marital appraisals and their

associations with married persons’ overall well-being.

We know of no studies that have explored interactive effects of own and spouse’s marital

appraisals on one’s own well-being. However, we speculate that the protective effects of

one’s own marital satisfaction may be buoyed by a spouse’s positive marital appraisal,

whereas the harmful effects of one’s own negative appraisal may be amplified when one’s

spouse also offers a negative appraisal. We expected to find stronger evidence of moderation

effects among husbands than wives, given well-documented gender differences in marital

interactions, whereby women play a more active role in communicating, instigating change

in a partner’s behavior, and conveying concerns about the marital relationship (Bloch,

Haase, & Levenson, 2014). By contrast, men tend to take a more passive or silent approach

to addressing marital issues, and therefore their feelings toward the marriage may not

necessarily be transmitted to their spouse and may not interact with their wives’ marital

assessments to affect wives’ overall well-being (Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993).

Given this, women’s marital interactions may elicit a stronger reaction from their husbands

than vice versa, carrying consequences for husbands’ well-being. To address these

questions, we evaluated two-way interaction terms of each partner’s appraisal on one’s

subjective well-being.

Other Influences on Marital Quality and Well-Being

We evaluated the extent to which associations between marital quality and well-being

persist when we controlled for potential demographic and socioeconomic confounds,

including age (Mroczek & Spiro, 2005; Proulx et al., 2007), race (Broman, 2005; Krause,

1993), own and spouse’s physical health (Butterworth & Rodgers, 2006; Kaufman &

Taniguchi, 2006), socioeconomic status (White & Rogers, 2000), marital duration

(Umberson et al., 2006), whether one is in a first or higher order marriage (Barrett, 2000;

Mirecki, Chou, Elliott, & Schneider, 2013), and parental status (Umberson, Pudrovska, &

Reczek, 2010). We also controlled for characteristics of the specific activities to which one

was referring when describing one’s mood on the study day.

Carr et al. Page 6

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Method

Data

Our analyses are based on data from the DUST supplement to the 2009 PSID, a national

panel study of a representative sample of families in the United States. The original 1968

PSID sample included 18,000 individuals in approximately 5,000 families. All respondents

from the original sample and anyone born to or adopted by one of these families have been

followed in the study. The PSID sample is a self-sustaining one; it increases as children

leave their parents’ households and form new households. Adult children are then tracked by

the study investigators; the design produces a nationally representative cross-section of

families each year (McGonagle & Schoeni, 2006). Interviews were conducted annually

between 1968 and 1997 and biennially thereafter. Reinterview rates for original sample

members have been consistently 98% per year (96% over 2 years), and the sample of

families now exceeds 8,000. In 2009, the response rate for the PSID (including new split-off

households) was 94.3%.

DUST sampled couples in the 2009 PSID in which both spouses were at least 50 years old

and at least one spouse was at least 60 years old as of December 31, 2008. The vast majority

of married persons in the PSID age 60 and older have spouses who are age 50 and older;

however, the sample does not represent the small fraction (~5%) of couples in which one

spouse is 60 or older and the other under 50. To enhance opportunities for studying

disability, couples in which one or both spouses reported a health limitation during the 2009

core interview were oversampled, and strata were further divided by the husband’s age (<70,

70+).

The DUST instrument, which was administered by telephone within a few months after the

2009 core PSID interview, was designed as a 30- to 40-minute diary. DUST was paired

during the first of two interviews with a 15- to 20-minute supplemental questionnaire that

included global well-being, functioning, marital quality, and stylized time use questions. To

obtain a balanced sample of days, couples were systematically assigned interview days that

would yield one weekday and one weekend day diary; thus, up to four daily diaries could be

completed per couple. Husbands and wives were interviewed separately but on the same

date. The diary asked about all activities on the previous day, beginning at 4:00 a.m. and

continuing until 4:00 a.m. the day of interview. Respondents also were asked detailed

questions about how they felt while doing up to three randomly selected activities (for

details, see Freedman & Cornman, 2012); this approach is based on the validated Day

Reconstruction Method developed to measure momentary well-being (Kahneman et al.,

2006). DUST assessed momentary well-being for up to three activities to minimize subject

fatigue and boredom; this sampling procedure is consistent with those of other national daily

diary studies (Iida, Shrout, Laurenceau, & Bolger, 2012). Comparisons of momentary

measures collected through 24-hour diary format with real-time experience sampling

methods suggest very good agreement (Dockray et al., 2010).

Of the 543 eligible couples sampled for DUST, at least one diary was completed for 394

couples, yielding a response rate of 73%. About 4% of respondents (n = 33) had a spouse

who could not participate because of a permanent health condition (e.g., memory loss). For

Carr et al. Page 7

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

these couples, diaries were collected from the spouse without a health condition. Because

analyses focus on own and spouse’s reports of marital quality, our analytic sample was

limited to couples for whom we had both spouses’ reports of marital quality (n = 361). For

analyses assessing momentary mood, we had 720 paired husband–wife diary days and 1,920

paired activities.

Dependent Variables

Subjective well-being—Global satisfaction is assessed with the question, “Taking all things together, how satisfied are you with your life these days?” Response categories range

from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very). This single item was administered at the beginning and end of

the interview, yielding a correlation of .65. This is consistent with other studies detecting 1-

hour test–retest reliabilities of.40 to .66 and same day test–retest reliabilities of .50 to .55

(Krueger & Schkade, 2008). In the analyses presented here, we used the evaluation provided

at the beginning of the interview, in order to avoid potential priming effects as a result of the

interview content (Strack, 1992). Momentary well-being refers to how happy a respondent

was while doing reported activities on the study day. For the randomly selected activities

from each diary, respondents reported how happy they were on a scale that ranged from 0

(not at all happy) to 6 (very happy).

Independent Variables

Marital quality—Marital quality is derived from a subset of six items drawn from a standardized instrument reflecting both marital strain and support (Whalen & Lachman,

2000). Respondents indicate how much: you can open up to your spouse if you need talk

about your worries; your spouse appreciates you; your spouse argues with you (reverse

coded); your spouse understands the way you feel about things; your spouse makes you feel

tense (reverse coded); and your spouse gets on your nerves (reverse coded). Response

categories range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Responses are averaged so that higher values

reflect more positive assessments. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the six items

form a single factor, with all loadings 0.53 or higher and a Cronbach’s alpha of .78. We also

calculated two 3-item scales capturing positive (α = .71) and negative interactions (α = .71).

Preliminary regression analyses revealed similar associations between own marital quality

and well-being, regardless of the scale used, and models using the six-item scale had

superior model fit. Thus, we use the single six-item scale in all analyses.

Control variables—All models were adjusted for selected respondent, spouse, and couple characteristics that may potentially confound the statistical association between marital

quality and well-being. Respondent and spouse characteristics include age, self-rated health,

and disability. Age categories are 50–69 (reference category), 70–79, and 80+ for men, and

50–59 (reference category), 60–69, and 70+ for women. The different cutpoints for

husbands and wives reflect the fact that at least one member of the dyad had to be age 60 or

older for study inclusion, and men tend to marry women younger than themselves. These

categories also reflect the low number of men under age 60 and women over age 80 in the

sample. We use categorical rather than continuous measures because the association

between age and well-being is not linear; the association is positive between ages 60 and 75

and reverses thereafter (Frijters & Beatton, 2012).

Carr et al. Page 8

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Order of marriage refers to whether one is in a remarriage; first marriage is the reference

group. We also controlled for whether a respondent has any children (1 = yes, 0 = no). Self-

rated health refers to whether one rates his or her own health as “excellent,” “very good,”

“good,” “fair,” or “poor”; higher scores reflect poorer health. The five-level ordinal measure

is preferable to a dichotomous indicator (e.g., poor/fair vs. other) because the latter conceals

important gradations in later life health (Finnas, Nyqvist, & Saarela, 2008). Disability refers

to whether one has “serious difficulty” with hearing; seeing when wearing glasses;

concentrating, remembering or making decisions because of a physical, mental or emotional

condition; walking or climbing stairs; difficulty dressing or bathing; or doing errands alone,

such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping because of a physical, mental, or emotional

condition. This measure was developed for the American Community Survey (Weathers,

2005). Couple characteristics are total household income for 2008 (in quartiles), total wealth

for 2008 (in quartiles), and marital duration (in years).

For analyses predicting momentary happiness during daily activities, we also controlled for

whether the activity was performed on a weekend (vs. weekday), at home (vs. elsewhere),

with the spouse (vs. alone or with someone else), and which of 17 different activity

categories best captures the nature of the randomly selected activity. Because the activity

categories are mutually exclusive, we used traveling as the comparison group. A major

strength of diary data is their detailed information on what people are doing when their

momentary mood is assessed. In preliminary analyses, we contrasted regression models

using the full set of 17 activities indicators versus aggregated categories to predict well-

being. The distinctive effects of the 17 categories in our sex-specific models suggested that

we would need to create different aggregated categories for each gender, and we wanted to

keep the sex-specific models identical.

PSID has very low levels of missing data; across all the variables in the life satisfaction

models, 21 (2.9%) or fewer cases were missing data on any one variable. For the additional

variables that appear only in the happiness models, at most 24 (0.6%) activities have missing

data on any one variable. All variables except one (education) have less than 1.5% missing

data; we recoded the missing data to the modal category of the variable. Education had

missing data for 2.9% of cases, thus we imputed the age-sex specific mode. Given the

extremely low level of missing data (and hence likely trivial impact on variance estimates),

we opted for mean imputation rather than more complex multiple-imputation techniques.

Analytic Plan

We first present weighted descriptive statistics for husbands and wives (see Table 1; see

below for description of sampling weights). Next, we examine the unadjusted associations

between both own and spouse’s marital quality appraisals and well-being (see Table 2). We

then evaluate the extent to which these unadjusted associations persist net of all control

variables (see Table 3). Finally, we estimate models that include an interaction term between

husband and wife marital assessments (see Table 4). All analyses were performed in Stata

11.1.

Associations were assessed using actor–partner interdependence models (APIM; Cook &

Kenny, 2005), estimated using seemingly unrelated regression. In actor–partner

Carr et al. Page 9

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

interdependence models the effect of the respondent’s own characteristics are referred to as

actor effects and the effect of the spouse’s characteristics are labeled partner effects. This

approach accounts for the nonindependence of husbands’ and wives’ evaluations of well-

being (Cook & Kenny, 2005). The zero-order correlations between husbands’ and wives’

life satisfaction and momentary happiness scores were .27 and .17, respectively. We used an

adjusted Wald test to test the equality of coefficients for husbands and wives.

Respondent-level descriptive statistics and regression models for life satisfaction are

weighted to take into account differential subsampling of eligible PSID couples across strata

and differential nonresponse by strata. Weights for activity-level descriptive statistics and

models assessing experienced happiness are further adjusted for the overrepresentation of

weekend days in the original sample, differential response rates by day of the week, and the

fact that activities of longer duration have a greater chance of being randomly selected for

the sample of activities for which momentary happiness is assessed. Standard errors in the

regression models are adjusted for both survey design and the fact that multiple observations

(e.g., activities) come from one respondent.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

The data in Table 1 show that life satisfaction and experienced happiness do not differ

significantly by gender. Both husbands and wives, on average, rated their general life

satisfaction as 5.0 (out of 6). Men reported slightly more momentary happiness, but the

gender difference only approached statistical significance (5.1 vs. 4.9, p = .09). Consistent

with prior studies of marital quality, husbands rated their marriages slightly more positively

than wives (3.3 vs. 3.1, p < .001). Wives were younger than husbands and less likely to

report a disability (36.1 vs. 44.3%) yet also reported slightly poorer health; the latter two

differences were not statistically significant. The average marital duration was 38.5 years

(SD = 14.6), and 28% of respondents were in a remarriage.

Characteristics of diary activities are presented at the bottom of Table 1. Roughly one third

of the randomly selected activities occurred on the weekend or were done with a spouse.

Wives’ activities were more likely than husbands’ to take place at home (59 vs. 46%, p < .

001). Consistent with literature on the gender typing of social roles, we found that husbands

were more likely than wives to have been working for pay and traveling on the study day,

whereas women were more likely to have prepared food, done household chores, or

socialized.

Multivariate Analyses

Marital quality and well-being: Unadjusted models—The unadjusted coefficients of husbands’ and wives’ own (actor) and spouse’s (partner) marital quality appraisals on both

own and spouse’s well-being are displayed in Table 2. The left-hand panel of the table

shows that each 1-point increase in one’s own marital quality appraisal was associated with

a 0.52- and 0.72-point increase in husbands’ and wives’ life satisfaction scores, respectively

(p < .01). Similar patterns emerged for momentary happiness: Each 1-point increase in one’s

Carr et al. Page 10

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

own marital quality assessment was associated with a 0.49- and 0.40-point increase in one’s

own happiness among husbands and wives, respectively (p < .001). Coefficients did not

differ significantly by gender. We found no evidence that partner appraisals were associated

with own well-being. These weak associations are not likely due to multicollinearity; the

zero-order correlation between spouses’ marital appraisals was modest (r = .38).

Marital quality and well-being: Fully adjusted models—Table 3 presents coefficients for husbands’ and wives’ life satisfaction (left-hand panel) and momentary

happiness (right-hand panel), adjusted for own and spouse’s marital quality assessment, and

all control variables. Associations between own (actor) and spouse’s (partner) marital

quality assessments with well-being change little when all control variables were adjusted.

Husbands’ and wives’ own reports of marital quality were significantly associated with their

own life satisfaction reports (bs = 0.45 and 0.67, respectively, p < 0.01). Similar patterns

hold for happy mood (bs = 0.42 and 0.40 respectively, p < .001). These associations are

large relative to other independent variables in the models; however, they do not differ

significantly by gender.

Again, we did not find significant associations between partner appraisals and own well-

being. However, we found evidence of another potential partner influence: Spouse’s self-

rated health was inversely and significantly associated with wives’ (but not husbands’) life

satisfaction (b = –0.16, p < .01). Wives’ self-rated health was also associated with own life

satisfaction (b = –0.19, p < .01). By contrast, husbands’ self-assessed health (but not that of

their wives) was associated with own life satisfaction (b = –0.16, p < .05, for poor health)

and experienced happiness (b = –0.14, p < .01), and men with a disability reported lower life

satisfaction (b = –0.21, p < .01).

Moderation analysis: Interactive effects of husbands’ and wives’ marital appraisals—Our final aim was to assess whether the associations between one’s own marital appraisals and well-being are contingent on spouse’s marital appraisals. Coefficients

for main and interaction effects for husbands’ and wives’ marital quality assessments,

adjusted for controls, are presented in Table 4. We found statistically significant interaction

terms for husbands only; the association between men’s own marital quality and life

satisfaction was conditional on the wife’s marital happiness.

For ease of interpretation, we have plotted illustrative results in Figure 1. The left panel of

the figure shows that, after controlling all other covariates, husbands who rated their marital

quality as very poor (M = 1.0) and whose wives also rated their marital quality as very poor

(M = 1.0) reported a life satisfaction score of just 1.8 (out of 6) compared to 5.4(a 3.6-point

improvement) if their wives’ marital quality score was a 4. In other words, even an

unhappily married man may have his life satisfaction buoyed when his wife experiences

high marital satisfaction. By contrast, among wives who rated their marriage very poorly (M

= 1.0), their life satisfaction score was only modestly higher when husbands’ scores were 4

rather than 1 (4.0 vs. 2.5, or a 1.5-point improvement). An unhappily married woman may

experience slightly elevated levels of life satisfaction when her husband is satisfied with the

marriage, yet the increase is much flatter than among husbands.

Carr et al. Page 11

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Stated otherwise, among persons with very low marital quality (M = 1.0), husbands

experienced life satisfaction increases of roughly 1.3 points with each 1-point increase in his

wife’s marital appraisals, whereas wives experienced comparable increases of just 0.5 points

per each 1-point increase in their husbands’ marital appraisals. We did not find evidence of

statistically significant interaction terms for experienced happiness (see Table 4).

Discussion

Our analysis is the first we know of to explore associations among own, spouse’s, and

combined marital quality appraisals and both general and momentary assessments of

subjective well-being among a nationally representative sample of married older adults. The

findings, based on a unique daily diary data set, offer several new insights into the complex

associations between marital quality and two distinct aspects of emotional well-being in

later life.

Marital Quality Similarly Associated With Husbands’ and Wives’ Well-Being

We found that marital quality was strongly associated with evaluations of one’s life as a

whole (as reflected in judgments of life satisfaction) and moment-to-moment experiences of

happiness while performing daily activities. These associations were substantial in

magnitude and persisted net of controls. To put these coefficient sizes into perspective, note

that each 1-point increase on a 4-point marital quality scale was associated with a 0.45-point

increase in husbands’ global satisfaction and a 0.42-point increase in momentary happiness,

whereas being disability free was associated with a 0.21-point boost in life satisfaction and a

0.23-point increase in momentary happy mood. The unadjusted models explained roughly

five times as much of the variance in life satisfaction versus momentary happiness, whereas

the fully adjusted models explained roughly twice as much of the variance in satisfaction

versus daily happiness. The fully adjusted models included controls for daily activities,

which may account for a sizable proportion of the variance in daily mood. Life satisfaction

appears to be more responsive to traditional and enduring markers of life quality, such as

marital quality, whereas measures of experienced well-being are more responsive to

contemporaneous activities and circumstances (Kahneman et al., 2006).

The magnitude of the associations between marital quality and well-being did not differ

significantly by gender; neither was model fit appreciably different for men and women in

our fully adjusted models. These patterns are consistent with prior studies based on small

nonrepresentative samples of older couples (Quirouette & Pushkar-Gold, 1992; Whisman et

al., 2006) and the conclusion drawn from a recent meta-analysis (Jackson et al., 2014).

Although studies based on younger samples have consistently shown stronger linkages

between marital quality and global well-being for women than men (Proulx et al., 2007;

Whisman et al., 2006), these analyses do not reflect distinctive aspects of older adults’ social

roles, relations, and psychological development.

Marriage may be equally salient to the well-being of older men and women. Both older

men’s and women’s future time horizons become more limited, and individuals consciously

pare down their social networks to include only those to whom one is closest and those

relationships deemed most important to one’s overall well-being (Carstensen, 1991). Men’s

Carr et al. Page 12

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

work-related social ties and women’s rich friendship networks may diminish in number,

whether by one’s own choice or the structural realities of retirement; death; and the onset of

significant others’ aging-related challenges, including illness and caregiving (Dykstra &

Gierveld, 2004; Kulik, 2002). As such, spouses may grow increasingly and equally reliant

on one another for both their overall and daily well-being (Lang, 2001).

Second, as gender roles and relations shift over the life course the daily nature of marriage

and its implications for men’s and women’s well-being may converge. When men retire and

older women’s responsibility for minor children subside, spouses typically experience and

report greater role equity (Hagedoorn et al., 2006; Kulik, 2002). Older men may become

more oriented toward family and affiliation and less oriented toward power and agency.

Older women, by contrast, may place an increased emphasis on agency and self-fulfillment,

and their identities and overall well-being become less closely tied to their relationships with

others (James, Lewkowicz, Libhaber, & Lachman, 1995). The relative importance of

marriage to women’s well-being may decline, whereas its importance to men’s well-being

may increase, leading to a convergence by later life.

Limited Evidence for Partner Effects

We did not find significant associations between older adults’ well-being and their spouses’

marital quality assessment. This pattern does not appear to reflect multicollinearity, because

the zero-order correlation between the two spouses’ marital assessments was just .38. We

expected to find evidence of partner effects, given prior writings suggesting that spouses

who are dissatisfied with their marriage may treat their partner poorly by either instigating

conflict or withdrawing emotional support (Whisman et al., 2004). These acts may in turn

have direct implications for the partner’s well-being. However, older adults may not act on

their negative feelings toward their spouse, thus weakening the potential linkage between

one spouse’s marital satisfaction and the other spouse’s emotional well-being. Older adults

are more likely than younger adults to forgive their social partners or overlook their

transgressions (Allemand, 2008), or they may ignore problems with their significant others

because the relationship is an important (or even sole) source of emotional closeness and

intimacy (Luong, Charles, & Fingerman, 2011).

Although we did not find evidence of partner effects related to marital appraisals, we did

find that spouse’s health affected the life satisfaction of women only. This finding is

consistent with a vast literature documenting that women are more likely than men to act as

a caregiver to their spouse. Women help maintain their husband’s health by providing

healthy meals and encouraging healthy behaviors, including compliance with physicians’

recommendations (Umberson et al., 2006). Wives also tend to provide direct physical care to

their unhealthy husbands; wife caregivers perform a greater number and range of tasks and

provide more hours of caregiving than do husband caregivers (Pinquart & Sorensen, 2006).

This caregiving may in turn tax women’s emotional well-being (Kaufman & Taniguchi,

2006). Our results contribute to a mounting literature showing that husband’s health

contributes to a range of wife outcomes, including her perceptions of marital conflict

(Iveniuk, Waite, Laumann, McClintock, & Tiedt, 2014), although wives’ health does not

have comparable effects on husband well-being.

Carr et al. Page 13

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Men’s Satisfaction and Multiplicative Marital Quality Effects

Finally, we found that the strength of association between a man’s marital quality

assessment and his life satisfaction is contingent on his wife’s marital appraisals. A man

who views his marriage very unfavorably may still enjoy relatively high levels of life

satisfaction if his wife views the marriage favorably. However, a similarly pronounced

pattern did not emerge among women. These patterns may reflect gendered interactions and

communication within marriage. Women typically provide more health-enhancing support

to husbands than vice versa, and women’s provision of effective emotional and practical

spousal support is linked to their own levels of marital happiness (Williamson & Schaffer,

2001). A happily married woman may be highly motivated to provide care and practical

support to her spouse, such that even an unhappily married man may receive practical

benefits that enhance his overall well-being. Moreover, women are more likely to try to

engage partners in marital issues, whether a happily married woman praising positive

aspects, or an unhappily married woman criticizing her husband. By contrast, men tend to

take a more passive or silent approach, whereby their feelings toward the marriage may not

be conveyed to their spouse. Given men’s more passive style of marital interaction, their

marital unhappiness may not compound their wives’ marital dissatisfaction to affect her

overall well-being (Heavey et al., 1993).

Our results may also reflect gender differences in the bases of one’s marital quality

appraisals. Recent research shows that older husbands’ marital appraisals depend heavily on

what men feel their wives do for them (e.g., “She makes me feel loved and supported”),

whereas older wives’ marital satisfaction is based largely on what she feels she does for her

husband (e.g., “I make him feel loved and supported”; Boerner, Jopp, Carr, Sosinsky, &

Kim, 2014). In other words, both men’s and women’s evaluations of marital quality are

shaped by the perceived benefits for the husband. Thus, a couple in which both report high

satisfaction may be one in which the wife gives a lot and the husband feels he receives a lot,

thus enhancing his life satisfaction.

Limitations

The DUST provides a unique opportunity to assess how assessments of marital quality

matter for both partners’ subjective well-being, including both general and momentary

measures. However, our study has several limitations. First, although DUST is embedded in

a longitudinal panel, it is cross-sectional, and we therefore cannot ascertain causal ordering.

It is plausible that one’s psychological well-being may bias both own and spouse’s marital

appraisals. People evaluate their circumstances more positively when they are in a happy

rather than sad mood. Similarly, persons with high levels of negative affect tend to offer

more negative accounts of their marriages and are more likely to recall negative information

about past experiences (Teasdale, Taylor, & Fogarty, 1980). Unhappy persons also are less

capable of providing their spouses the love and support they desire, or they may instigate

frequent marital conflicts (Iveniuk et al., 2014). Our concerns are partly allayed by a recent

meta-analysis showing that the association between marital quality and well-being was

stronger when well-being was the dependent variable (Proulx et al., 2007). Furthermore, the

associations we detected between marital quality and well-being were comparable for both

well-being measures despite their distinctive properties: Life satisfaction is evaluative,

Carr et al. Page 14

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

whereas momentary well-being may change often and in response to one’s immediate social

context (George, 2010; Kahneman et al., 2006). To further explore these issues, we

conducted supplementary analyses in which we reestimated all models using measures of

negative aspects of momentary mood, including feeling sad, worried, and frustrated. The

results were virtually identical to those presented here, in which negative moods were

inversely related to own but not spouse’s marital quality reports.

Second, the DUST does not measure personality traits, such as neuroticism or agreeableness

(Whisman et al., 2006). Such measures are potentially important contributors to both marital

quality and subjective well-being (Iveniuk et al., 2014) and would enable a fuller assessment

of whether individuals have a “set point,” or relatively stable level of happiness as a function

of enduring traits (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2006). Although we could not directly explore

personality’s influence on life satisfaction, momentary well-being models were estimated

with a parameter to capture unmeasured attributes of respondents, suggesting that

personality alone is unlikely to account for the marital quality–experienced happiness

relationship.

Third, we focused on marital quality as a predictor of well-being but did not consider the

extent to which marital quality (his, hers, or both) buffer against the effect of other late-life

stressors, such as caregiving or functional impairment. Finally, given the cross-sectional

design of the DUST, we could not assess the role of social selection. If marriages that are

appraised highly are more likely to remain intact and are more likely to enhance subjective

well-being, selectivity into long-term marriages may overstate these relationships. Future

waves of the DUST may allow fuller exploration of these issues.

Despite these limitations, our study reveals the important and complex role that marital

appraisals play in the lives of older adults. Marital quality is an important factor shaping

both global well-being (happy lives) and experienced well-being (happy days). For

husbands, in particular, life satisfaction is enhanced by wives’ marital happiness, even

among men who view their marriages unfavorably. Taken together, our results suggest that

future research on marriage and well-being in later life should consider both spouses’

perspectives on marital quality and should explore how these perspectives are linked to

specific behaviors, such as spousal caregiving, that may enhance the other partner’s well-

being.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging (Grant P01 AG029409-04). The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not represent their employers or the funding agency.

References

Allemand M. Age differences in forgiveness: The role of future time perspective. Journal of Research in Personality. 2008; 42:1137–1147.10.1037/a0031839

Barrett A. Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41:451–464.10.1007/s11205-007-9194-3 [PubMed: 11198568]

Carr et al. Page 15

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Beach SRH, Katz J, Kim S, Brody GH. Prospective effects of marital satisfaction on depressive symptoms in established marriages: A dyadic model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2003; 20:355–371.10.1177/0265407503020003005

Bernard, J. The future of marriage. New York: Bantam; 1972.

Bloch L, Haase CM, Levenson RW. Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: more than a wives’ tale. Emotion. 2014; 14:130–144.10.1037/a0034272 [PubMed: 24188061]

Boerner K, Jopp D, Carr D, Sosinsky L, Kim S-L. “His” and “her” marriage? Exploring the gendered facets of marital quality in later life. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences Social Sciences. 2014; 6910.1093/geronb/gbu032579-589

Bookwala, J. Marriage and other partnered relationships in middle and late adulthood. In: Blieszner, R.; Bedford, VH., editors. Handbook of aging and the family. 2. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO; 2012. p. 91-124.

Broman CL. Marital quality in Black and White marriages. Journal of Family Issues. 2005; 26:431– 441.10.1177/0192513X04272439

Bulanda JR. Gender, marital power, and marital quality in later life. Journal of Women & Aging. 2011; 23:2–22.10.1080/08952841.2011.540481

Butterworth P, Rodgers B. Concordance in the mental health of spouses: Analysis of a large national household panel survey. Psychological Medicine. 2006; 36:685–697.10.1017/S003329170500667 [PubMed: 16608560]

Carr D, Boerner K. Do spousal discrepancies in marital quality assessments affect psychological adjustment to widowhood? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71:495–509.10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2009.00615

Carr D, Boerner K, Moorman SM. End-of-life planning in a family context: Does relationship quality affect whether (and with whom) older adults plan? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2013; 68:586–592.10.1093/geronb/gbt034

Carr D, Springer KW. Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72:743–761.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00728

Carstensen L. Socioemotional selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 1991; 11:195–217.

Charles ST, Mather M, Carstensen LL. Aging and emotional memory: The forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2003; 23:495– 504.10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.310 [PubMed: 18808240]

Cohen O, Geron Y, Farchi A. Marital quality and global well-being among older adult Israeli couples in enduring marriages. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2009; 37:299– 317.10.1080/01926180802405968

Cook WL, Kenny DA. The actor–partner independence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2005; 29:101– 109.10.1080/0165025044400038

Davila J, Karney BR, Hall TW, Bradbury TN. Depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction: Within- subject associations and the moderating effects of gender and neuroticism. Journal of Family Psychology. 2003; 17:537–570.10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.557

Dehle C, Weiss RL. Sex differences in prospective associations between marital quality and depressed mood. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998; 60:1002–1011.10.2307/353641

Diener E, Lucas RE, Scollon CN. Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist. 2006; 61:305–314.10.1007/s10902-005-5683-8 [PubMed: 16719675]

Dockray S, Grant N, Stone AA, Kahneman D, Wardle J, Steptoe A. A comparison of affect ratings obtained with ecological momentary assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method. Social Indicators Research. 2010; 99:269–283.10.1007/s11205-010-9578-7 [PubMed: 21113328]

Dykstra PA, Gierveld J. Gender and marital history differences in emotional and social loneliness among Dutch older adults. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2004; 23:141–155.10.1353/cja.2004.0018 [PubMed: 15334814]

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. Older Americans 2012: Key indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office; 2012.

Carr et al. Page 16

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Fincham FD, Beach SRH, Harold GT, Osborne LN. Marital satisfaction and depression: Different causal relationships for men and women? Psychological Science. 1997; 8:351– 357.10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.442

Finnas F, Nyqvist F, Saarela J. Some methodological remarks on self-rated health. The Open Public Health Journal. 2008; 1:32–39.

Freedman, VA.; Cornman, JC. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics’ Supplement on Disability and Use of Time (DUST) User Guide: Release 2009. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2012.

Frijters P, Beatton T. The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2012; 82:525–42.10.1016/j.jebo.2012.03.008

George LK. Still happy after all these years: Research frontiers on subjective well-being in later life. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010; 63B:331– 339.10.1093/geronb/gbq006

Glenn ND, Weaver CN. The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1981; 43:161–168.10.1086/268632

Hagedoorn M, van Yperen NW, Coyne JC, van Jaarsveld CHM, Ranchor AV, van Sonderen E, Sanderman R. Does marriage protect older people from distress? The role of equity and recency of bereavement. Psychology and Aging. 2006; 21:611–620.10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.611 [PubMed: 16953722]

Heavey CL, Layne C, Christensen A. Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993; 61:16– 27.10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16 [PubMed: 8450102]

Hill, MS. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: A user’s guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992.

Holley SR, Haase CM, Levenson RW. Age-related changes in demand–withdraw communication behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75:822–836.10.1111/jomf.12051 [PubMed: 23913982]

Iida, M.; Shrout, PE.; Laurenceau, J-P.; Bolger, N. Using diary methods in psychological research. In: Cooper, H.; Camic, PM.; Long, DL.; Panter, AT.; Rindskopf, D.; Sher, KJ., editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 277-305.

Iveniuk J, Waite LJ, Laumann E, McClintock MK, Tiedt AD. Marital conflict in older couples: Positivity, personality, and health. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76:130–144.10.1111/ jomf.1208

Jackson JB, Miller RB, Oka M, Henry RG. Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76:105–129.10.1111/jomf.12077

James JB, Lewkowicz C, Libhaber J, Lachman M. Rethinking the gender identity crossover hypothesis: A test of a new model. Sex Roles. 1995; 32:185–207.10.1007/BF01544788

Kahneman D, Krueger A, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Stone A. Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science. 2006 Jun 30.312:1908–1910.10.1126/science.1129688 [PubMed: 16809528]

Kaufman G, Taniguchi H. Gender and marital happiness in later life. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27:735–757.10.1177/0192513X05285293

Krause N. Race differences in life satisfaction among aged men and women. Journals of Gerontology. 1993; 48:235–244.10.1093/geronj/48.5.S235

Krueger A, Schkade D. The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Political Economics. 2008; 92:1833–1845.

Kulik, L. His and her marriage: Differences in spousal perceptions of marital life in late adulthood. In: Shohov, SP., editor. Advances in psychology research. Huntington, NY: Nova Science; 2002. p. 21-32.

Lang FR. Regulation of social relationships in later adulthood. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001; 56B:321–326.10.1093/geronb/56.6.P321

Loscocco K, Walzer S. Gender and the culture of heterosexual marriage in the United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2013; 5:1–14.10.1111/jftr.12003

Carr et al. Page 17

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Luong G, Charles ST, Fingerman SL. Better with age: Social relationships across adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2011; 28:9–23.10.1177/0265407510391362 [PubMed: 22389547]

McGonagle, K.; Schoeni, R. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview and summary of scientific contributions after nearly 40 years. Technical Series Paper No 06-01. 2006. Retrieved from http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/ 2006-01_PSID_Overview_and_summary_40_years.pdf

Mirecki RM, Chou JL, Elliott M, Schneider CM. What factors influence marital satisfaction? Differences between first and second marriages. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2013; 54:78– 93.10.1080/10502556.2012.743831

Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Change in life satisfaction during adulthood: Findings from the Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 88:189– 202.10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.189 [PubMed: 15631584]

Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: An updated meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2006; 61:33–45.

Proulx CM, Helms HM, Buehler C. Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007; 69:576–593.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x

Quirouette C, Pushkar-Gold D. Spousal characteristics as predictors of well-being in older couples. International Journal of Aging & Human Development. 1992; 34:257–269. [PubMed: 1607215]

Revenson, T.; Kayser, K.; Bodenmann, G., editors. Emerging perspectives on couples’ coping with stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2005.

Ryff CD, Singer B. The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry. 1998; 9:1– 28.10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1

Schwarz, N.; Strack, F. Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In: Kahneman, D.; Diener, E.; Schwarz, N., editors. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. p. 61-84.

Strack, F. “Order effects” in survey research: Activation and information functions of preceding questions. In: Schwarz, N.; Sudman, S., editors. Contexts effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1992.

Teasdale JD, Taylor R, Fogarty SJ. Effects of induced elation: Depression on the accessibility of memories of happy and unhappy experiences. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1980; 18:339– 346. [PubMed: 7436981]

Umberson D, Pudrovska T, Reczek C. Parenthood, childlessness, and well-being: A life course perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72:621–629.10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2010.00721.x

Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DA, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47:1– 16.10.1177/002214650604700101 [PubMed: 16583772]

Weathers, R. A guide to disability statistics from the American Community Survey. Ithaca, NY: Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University; 2005.

Whalen HR, Lachman ME. Social support and strain from partner, family and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000; 17:5–30.10.1177/0265407500171001

Whisman, MA. The association between depression and marital satisfaction. In: Beach, SRH., editor. Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001.

Whisman MA, Uebelacker LA, Tolejko N, Chatav Y, Meckelvie M. Marital discord and well-being in older adults: Is the association confounded by personality? Psychology and Aging. 2006; 21:626– 631.10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.626 [PubMed: 16953724]

Whisman MA, Uebelacker LA, Weinstock LM. Psychopathology and marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004; 72:830–838.10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.830 [PubMed: 15482041]

Carr et al. Page 18

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

White L, Rogers SJ. Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62:1035–1051.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01035.x

Williamson GM, Shaffer DR. Relationship quality and potentially harmful behaviors by spousal caregivers: How we were then, how we are now. Psychology and Aging. 2001; 16:217– 226.10.1037/0882-7974.16.2.217 [PubMed: 11405310]

Windsor TD, Ryan LH, Smith J. Individual well-being in middle and older adulthood: Do spousal beliefs matter? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2009; 64B:586–596.10.1093/geronb/gbp058

Carr et al. Page 19

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Figure 1. Plotted Interaction Effects: Husband by Wife Marital Appraisal on Subjective Well-Being.

Carr et al. Page 20

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 21

Table 1

Weighted Means (and Standard Deviations, in Parentheses) or Percentages for All Variables Used in the

Analysis for Husbands and Wives in the Disability and Use of Time Supplement to the Panel Study of Income

Dynamics

Variables Husbands (n = 361) Wives (n = 361) p

Life satisfaction (range: 0–6) 5.0 (1.00) 5.0 (1.07) .718

Momentary happiness during activities yesterday (range: 0–6) 5.1 (1.19) 4.9 (1.18) .090

Marital quality (range: 1–4) 3.3 (0.53) 3.1 (0.57) < .001

Actor/partner characteristics

Age < .001

50–69 58.6

50–59 17.9

60–69 52.7

70–79 27.3

70+ 29.4

80+ 14.1

Completed education (in years) 13.9 (2.72) 13.3 (2.35) < .001

Race (1 = Black, 0 = non-Black) 2.9 2.6 .325

Second or higher order marriage (1 = yes) 27.9 28.5 .628

Has any children (1 = yes) 85.5 88.7 .145

Has a disability (1 = yes) 44.3 36.1 .087

Self-rated health (1 = excellent to 5 = poor) 2.6 (1.13) 2.7 (1.08) .069

Couple characteristics (n = 361 couples)

Income quartile, 2008

0 to 25th percentile 21.3

25th to 50th percentile 21.0

50th to 75th percentile 25.8

75th to 100th percentile 31.9

Wealth/assets quartile, 2009

0 to 25th percentile 19.1

25th to 50th percentile 22.8

50th to 75th percentile 27.8

75th to 100th percentile 30.4

Marital duration (in years) 38.5 (14.57)

Characteristics of activities

On the weekend (1 = yes) 31.6 34.4 .105

At home (1 = yes) 46.3 59.1 < .001

With spouse (1 = yes) 32.5 30.8 .488

Randomly selected activities yesterday (percentage participating)

Self-maintenance 8.2 7.5 .630

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 22

Variables Husbands (n = 361) Wives (n = 361) p

Eating 11.7 10.9 .658

Working for pay 8.2 4.7 .012

Shopping for food 1.8 1.9 .899

Shopping for other goods 3.2 2.7 .578

Preparing food 2.6 12.6 < .001

Doing household chores 1.3 5.4 < .001

Doing household maintenance 7.9 6.1 .220

Managing finances 2.6 1.6 .177

Caring for others 1.3 1.7 .549

Socializing 5.5 8.2 .047

Watching TV/movies 9.9 7.6 .070

Doing other non-active leisure activities 6.8 7.0 .821

Doing active leisure activities 3.2 2.6 .510

Doing organizational activities 1.7 1.1 .153

Using the computer 4.5 3.4 .320

Traveling 19.8 14.7 .037

Note: We conducted t tests to evaluate statistically significant gender differences for continuous variables and a two-sample test of equality for categorical measures. The sample includes 361 married couples (i.e., 361 wives and 361 husbands), and reports are based on 1,920 activities for men and 1,920 activities for women.

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 23

Table 2

Weighted Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models Predicting Life Satisfaction and Momentary Happiness, by

Own and Spouse’s Marital Quality Appraisals, Among Husbands and Wives in the Disability and Use of Time

Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Predictor

Life satisfaction (n = 361) Momentary happy mood (n = 1,920)

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives

Marital quality

Actor 0.52** 0.72*** 0.49*** 0.40***

(0.17) (0.11) (0.10) (0.11)

Partner 0.22 0.22 −0.11 −0.01

(0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.13)

Actor-specific intercept 2.64*** 2.04*** 3.71*** 3.72***

(0.53) (0.37) (0.42) (0.40)

ρ .20 (.07) .10 (.04)

Note: Unless otherwise noted table values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 24

Table 3

Weighted Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models Predicting Life Satisfaction and Momentary Happiness, by

Own and Spouse’s Marital Quality Appraisals and Control Variables, Among Husbands and Wives in the

Disability and Use of Time Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Predictor Life satisfaction (n = 361) Momentary happy mood (n = 1,920)

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives

Marital quality

Actor 0.45** 0.67*** 0.42*** 0.40***

(0.16) (0.11) (0.09) (0.10)

Partner 0.19 0.19 −0.11 −0.00

Actor characteristics

Age

70–79 husbands/60–69 wives 0.07 −0.15 0.22 0.19

(0.15) (0.15) (0.16) (0.18)

80+ husbands /70+ wives −0.02 0.18 0.20 0.22

(0.22) (0.19) (0.23) (0.22)

Completed education (in years) −0.06* −0.06* −0.05* −0.04

(0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Race: Black vs. non-Black 0.49 0.31 0.49** 0.13

(0.30) (0.24) (0.19) (0.24)

Second or higher order marriage −0.11 0.43* 0.07 0.27

(0.15) (0.18) (0.14) (0.18)

Has any children −0.10 0.15 0.01 0.21

(0.21) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16)

Has a disability −0.21** −0.31 −0.18 −0.21

(0.07) (0.16) (0.10) (0.12)

Self-rated ill health −0.16* −0.19** −0.14** −0.02

(0.06) (0.06) (0.05) (0.05)

Partner characteristics

Age

60–69 wives/70–79 husbands −0.06 −0.05 0.10 0.40**

(0.14) (0.16) (0.13) (0.12)

80+ husbands /70+ wives −0.18 −0.10 −0.16 0.30

(0.20) (0.22) (0.19) (0.18)

Has a disability 0.00 0.02 −0.02 −0.26*

(0.11) (0.11) (0.10) (0.12)

Self-rated ill health −0.04 −0.16** 0.01 0.04

(0.05) (0.04) (0.06) (0.05)

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 25

Predictor Life satisfaction (n = 361) Momentary happy mood (n = 1,920)

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives

Couple characteristics

Income 2008

25th to 50th percentile 0.34* 0.06 0.05 −0.10

(0.15) (0.16) (0.14) (0.15)

50th to 75th percentile −0.02 0.08 −0.08 −0.01

(0.19) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16)

75th to 100th percentile 0.15 0.10 −0.17 −0.29

(0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.17)

Wealth 2009

2nd quartile 0.84*** 0.08 0.44* −0.15

(0.14) (0.18) (0.17) (0.16)

3rd quartile 0.92*** 0.16 0.31 −0.08

(0.12) (0.13) (0.18) (0.17)

4th quartile 0.80*** −0.04 0.23 0.07

(0.13) (0.14) (0.20) (0.17)

Marital duration (years ) −0.00 0.01 0.00 −0.00

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Activity characteristics

Activity done…

On the weekend (vs. weekday) 0.05 0.07

(0.07) (0.07)

With the spouse (vs. alone or with someone else) 0.22* 0.09

(0.10) (0.09)

At home (vs. away from home) −0.21* −0.08

(0.09) (0.11)

Type of activity (/this activity)

Self-maintenance 0.17 −0.09

(0.19) (0.18)

Eating 0.11 0.21

(0.17) (0.14)

Working for pay −0.32 −0.37*

(0.19) (0.19)

Shopping for food −0.59* −0.48

(0.29) (0.31)

Shopping for other goods −0.48* −0.31

(0.23) (0.22)

Preparing food 0.35 −0.23

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 26

Predictor Life satisfaction (n = 361) Momentary happy mood (n = 1,920)

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives

(0.20) (0.23)

Doing household chores −0.08 −0.37

(0.24) (0.19)

Doing household maintenance −0.07 −0.83**

(0.16) (0.31)

Managing finances −0.48* −0.30

(0.21) (0.24)

Caring for others 0.02 −0.01

(0.21) (0.20)

Socializing 0.13 0.06

(0.16) (0.17)

Watching TV/movies 0.00 −0.32

(0.16) (0.17)

Doing other non-active leisure activities 0.08 −0.13

(0.19) (0.15)

Doing active leisure activities 0.09 0.15

(0.18) (0.19)

Doing religious organization activities 0.27 0.13

(0.15) (0.20)

Doing other organization activities −0.86** −0.75

(0.22) (0.46)

Using the computer 0.03 −0.44

(0.18) (0.24)

Traveling Omitted Omitted

Actor-specific intercept 3.81*** 3.37*** 4.66*** 4.09***

(0.62) (0.68) (0.55) (0.67)

ρ .15 (.07) .06 (.04)

Note: Unless otherwise noted, table values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.

N IH

-P A

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t N

IH -P

A A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Carr et al. Page 27

Table 4

Weighted Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models Predicting Life Satisfaction and Momentary Happiness, by

Interaction Terms of Own and Spouse’s Marital Quality, Among Husbands and Wives in the Disability and

Use of Time Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Predictor Life satisfaction (n = 361) Momentary happy mood (n = 1,920)

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives

Marital quality

Actor 1.75* 1.16** 0.73* −0.18

(0.65) (0.36) (0.36) (0.48)

Partner 1.65* 0.63* 0.25 −0.52

(0.64) (0.28) (0.43) (0.43)

Actor × Partner appraisal −0.45* −0.15 −0.11 0.18

(0.19) (0.10) (0.13) (0.15)

ρ .14 (.07) .06 (.04)

Note: Models are adjusted for all covariates. Unless otherwise noted, table values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

* p < .05.

** p <0.01.

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 October 01.