Cited by 242Attachment and Relationship DynamicsStress Responses and CortisolFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Positive couple interactions and daily cortisol: On the stress-protecting role of intimacy

Open access
Ditzen, Beate, Hoppmann, Christiane, Klumb, Petra·2008·Psychosomatic Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intimacy might be associated with reduced daily salivary cortisol levels in couples, thereby adding to the epidemiologic literature on reduced health burden in happy couples. METHODS: A total of 51 dual-earner couples reported time spent on intimacy, stated their current affect quality, and provided saliva samples for cortisol estimation approximately every 3 hours in a 1-week time-sampling assessment. In addition, participants provided data on chronic problems of work organization. RESULTS: Multilevel analyses revealed that intimacy was significantly associated with reduced daily salivary cortisol levels. There was an interaction effect of intimacy with chronic problems of work organization in terms of their relationship with cortisol levels, suggesting a buffering effect of intimacy on work-related elevated cortisol levels. Above this, the association between intimacy and cortisol was mediated by positive affect. Intimacy and affect together explained 7% of daily salivary cortisol variance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are in line with previous studies on the effect of intimacy on cortisol stress responses in the laboratory as well as with epidemiologic data on health beneficial effects of happy marital relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/psy.0b013e318185c4fc

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Ditzen, B., Hoppmann, C., & Klumb, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Ditzen, Beate
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
2008-10
Volume
70
Issue
8
Pages
883-889
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2086124458
Cited by
242
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
intimacy, salivary cortisol, stress buffering, couples, marital relationships, positive affect, occupational stress, dual-earner couples
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Arousal, Female, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System, Male, Marriage, Pituitary-Adrenal System, Stress, 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