Cited by 31Aging and Gerontology ResearchResilience and Mental HealthAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Dyadic effects of resilience on well-being in Chinese older couples: Mediating role of spousal support.

Zhang, Jinfeng, Yu, Nancy Xiaonan, Zhou, Mingjie, Zhang, Jianxin·2017·Journal of Family Psychology

Abstract

Concerning the interdependence of married couples, the strengths of not only actors but also of partners might improve aging successfully. This study aimed to examine the actor and partner effects of resilience on well-being in Chinese older couples and the potential mediating role of spousal exchanges at the actor and partner levels. Using a 2-wave longitudinal design, a total of 158 Chinese couples (age range 60-97 years) completed measures of resilience, perceived spousal exchanges (spousal support and negative exchanges), and well-being. The results showed that (a) the dyad had significant congruence in resilience and well-being, respectively; (b) resilience had significant actor and partner effects on well-being within the dyad; and (c) negative spousal exchanges could not mediate the actor and partner effects of resilience on well-being, and a gender difference emerged for the mediation role of spousal support: Actor and partner effects of husbands' resilience on well-being were mediated by both partners' perceived spousal support, whereas the actor and partner effects of wives' resilience on well-being were not mediated by perceived spousal support. Focusing on couples' interdependence, this study highlighted the role of spousal resilience and support on successful aging. Interventions should focus on enhancing both partners' resilience and promoting mutual support within the couple. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/fam0000250

Cites

50 of 50 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J., Yu, N. X., Zhou, M., & Zhang, J.
Affiliations
City University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Journal of Family Psychology
Published
2017
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
273-281
ISSN
  • 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1293
OpenAlex
W2528718076
Cited by
31
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Family Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
resilience, well-being, older couples, spousal support, dyadic effects, actor-partner effects, successful aging, gender differences, Chinese older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, China, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Social Support, Spouses, Resilience, Psychological

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