Cited by 29Attachment and Relationship DynamicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Specificity of the Association between Marital Discord and Longitudinal Changes in Symptoms of Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing

Whisman, Mark A., Robustelli, Briana L., Labrecque, Lindsay T.·2018·Family Process

Abstract

This longitudinal study was conducted to evaluate actor and partner effects of marital discord on changes in symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in a large population sample of Irish adults (N = 1,445 couples), adjusting for the potential confounds of quality of other social relationships and other psychopathology symptoms. The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model was used to examine actor and partner effects of marital discord on changes in symptoms of depression and GAD at a 2‐year follow‐up. Additional models examined these associations adjusting for family and friend discord and symptoms of the other type of psychopathology (depressive or GAD symptoms). Actor effects of marital discord on depressive and anxiety symptoms were greater for men than for women. There were significant, positive actor effects of marital discord on depressive symptoms for husbands and wives, which remained significant when adjusting for family and friend discord and GAD symptoms. There were significant, positive actor effects of marital discord on GAD symptoms for husbands, which remained significant when adjusting for family and friend discord and depressive symptoms. Results demonstrate that longitudinal associations between marital discord and depressive symptoms (for wives and husbands) and GAD symptoms (for husbands) are incremental to other rival explanations (family and friend discord and the other set of symptoms). Findings provide evidence for a potential causal association leading from marital discord to symptoms of depression and GAD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/famp.12351

Cites

42 of 42 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
Whisman, M. A., Robustelli, B. L., & Labrecque, L. T.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Whisman, Mark A.
Venue
Family Process
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-25
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
649-661
ISSN
  • 0014-7370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5300
OpenAlex
W2790416300
Cited by
29
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Process (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
marital conflict, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, actor-partner effects, actor-partner interdependence, gender differences, causal relationship, psychopathology, couples, Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing
MeSH terms
Patient Health Questionnaire, Adult, Aging, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Ireland, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Marriage, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spouses, Friends, Family Conflict

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