Cited by 1,068Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 153 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Marital quality and personal well-being: a meta- analysis

Open access
Proulx, Christine M., Helms, Heather M., Buehler, Cheryl·2007·Journal of Marriage and Family

Abstract

This study examines the association between marital quality and personal well‐being using meta‐analytic techniques. Effects from 93 studies were analyzed. The average weighted effect size r was .37 for cross‐sectional and .25 for longitudinal effects. Results indicate that several variables moderate the association between marital quality and personal well‐being, including gender, participants’ marital duration, source of measurement, data collection year, and dependent variable. These results suggest that longitudinal effects are more likely to be uncovered when using standard measurement and that future research should use samples homogenous in marital length. The longitudinal finding that the strength of the association is stronger when personal well‐being is treated as the dependent variable supports previous theorizing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x

Cites

153 of 153 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 143 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Foley S. H., 1989, Individual versus conjoint interpersonal therapy for depressed patients with marital disputes, International Journal of Family Psychiatry, 10, 29
  2. 10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.555 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Corresponding author
Proulx, Christine M.
Venue
Journal of Marriage and Family
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-07-05
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
576-593
ISSN
  • 0022-2445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3737
OpenAlex
W2024360759
Cited by
1,068
References
143
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 139 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 36
FWCI
20.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Marriage and the Family (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
marital quality, personal well-being, marital satisfaction, gender differences, marriage duration, longitudinal effects, cross-sectional effects, moderators, subjective well-being

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