Cited by 76Aging and Gerontology ResearchAging, Health, and DisabilityAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Marital closeness, functional disability, and adjustment in late life.

Mancini, Anthony D., Bonanno, George A.·2006·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) posits that emotionally close relationships are increasingly valued as people perceive constraints on time. Based on SST, this study of 1,532 older married persons hypothesized that emotional dimensions of marriage would more strongly predict adjustment at higher levels of functional disability. High levels of marital closeness were negatively associated with depression and anxiety and positively associated with self-esteem. Consistent with predictions derived from SST, marital closeness moderated the negative psychological effects of high levels of functional disability on depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. Results are discussed in the context of SST and traditional stress-buffering models of social support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.600

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mancini and Bonanno (2006) reported that marital closeness buffered the negative effects of functional disability on depression, anxiety, and self-esteem in a large representative older sample (mean age 68.9).

    “Finally, in a large representative and somewhat younger sample of older adults (mean age 68.9 years), Mancini and Bonanno (2006) found that marital closeness moderated the negative effects of functional disability on increased depression and anxiety and decreased self-esteem.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mancini, A. D., & Bonanno, G. A.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2006
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
600-610
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W1985409387
Cited by
76
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (AG15948-01; AG610757-01; AG05561-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
marital intimacy, functional disability, socioemotional selectivity theory, depression, anxiety, self-esteem, older married couples, stress buffering, social support, time constraints
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Bereavement, Depression, Emotions, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Self Concept, Sick Role, Social Support, Statistics as Topic, Geriatric Assessment, Spouses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review