CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 154 of the 154 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intimate Relationships and Depression: Searching for Causation in the Sea of Association

Whisman, Mark A., Sbarra, David A., Beach, Steven R.H.·2021·Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-103323
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article provides a critical review of existing research on intimate (marriage or marriage-like) relationship distress and risk for depression. Using the meta-framework of research triangulation, we seek to synthesize research evidence across several different methodologies and study designs and to draw the most reliable conclusion regarding a potential causal association between relationship distress and depression. Focusing on existing correlational (i.e., observational), genetically informed, and intervention (i.e., experimental) research on the association between relationship distress and depression, we conclude that the existing body of research evidence supports the claim that relationship distress is a causal risk factor for depression. A secondary aim of the article is to highlight a variety of effective methods that, when viewed from the perspective of triangulation, enhance the pursuit of causal inference, including propensity score matching, target trial emulation, directed acyclic graph approach, and Mendelian randomization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-103323

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Beach SRH, 2014, Handbook of Depression, 552
  3. 10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.555 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hernán MA, 2020, Causal Inference: What If
  5. Hill AB., 1965, Proc. R. Soc. Med., 58, 295
  6. Jacobson NS., 1985, Behav. Assess., 7, 323
  7. Miller B, 2004, J. Ment. Health Aging, 10, 65
  8. UN Women, 2020, Progress of the world's women 2019–2020: families in a changing world

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 104

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Whisman, M. A., Sbarra, D. A., & Beach, S. R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2021-05-07
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
233-258
ISSN
  • 1548-5943 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-5951
DOI
10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-103323
OpenAlex
W3128410192
Cited by
104
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG059260)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA220254)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
intimate relationships, relationship distress, depression, causal inference, marriage, causal risk factors, genetic research, intervention research, propensity score matching, target trial emulation, directed acyclic graphs, Mendelian randomization
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Marriage, Risk Factors

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