The present study investigated spousal interdependencies in well-being and the sources of these interdependencies among Americans and Japanese. We collected high-powered three-wave longitudinal and cross-sectional data from a wide age range of participants (Ns = 3,012 American couples aged 26–96 and 2,307 Japanese couples aged 24–76) and assessed a variety of well-being measures. Study 1 replicated previous findings that American spouses’ well-being was positively associated with each other. Studies 2a and 2b generalized the findings of Study 1 to Japanese spouses. Both Studies 1 and 2b showed conflicting results: There were effects of mutual influence and shared environmental factors’ influences on American and Japanese spouses’ well-being in a longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model when using the cross-lagged panel model, but not when using the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. These findings illustrate that the interdependent nature of well-being is an essential feature of American and Japanese married couples.
ArnettJ. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
3.
AsanoR.ItoK.YoshidaT. (2016). Shared relationship efficacy of dyad can increase life satisfaction in close relationships: Multilevel study. PLOS ONE, 11(7), Article e0159822. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159822
4.
BookwalaJ.SchulzR. (1996). Spousal similarity in subjective well-being: The Cardiovascular Health Study. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.4.582
5.
BusseriM. A.SadavaS. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271
6.
CaspiA.HerbenerE. S.OzerD. J. (1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.281
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
9.
CookW. L.KennyD. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405
10.
DemeroutiE.BakkerA. B.SchaufeliW. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.07.001
11.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
12.
DienerE.OishiS.TayL. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
13.
DienerE.SeligmanM. E. P.ChoiH.OishiS. (2018). Happiest people revisited. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 176–184. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697077
14.
DienerE.SuhE. M.LucasR. E.SmithH. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
15.
DormannC.GriffinM. A. (2015). Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological Methods, 20(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000041
16.
EchterhoffG.HigginsE. T.LevineJ. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x
17.
FeeneyB. C.CollinsN. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222
GustavsonK.RøysambE.BorrenI.TorvikF. A.KarevoldE. (2016). Life satisfaction in close relationships: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 1293–1311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9643-7
21.
HamakerE. L.KuiperR. M.GrasmanR. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
22.
HamakerE. L.WichersM. (2017). No time like the present: Discovering the hidden dynamics in intensive longitudinal data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416666518
HoppmannC. A.GerstorfD.WillisS. L.SchaieK. W. (2011). Spousal interrelations in happiness in the Seattle Longitudinal Study: Considerable similarities in levels and change over time. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020788
25.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
26.
HuelsnitzC. O.JonesR. E.SimpsonJ. A.Joyal-DesmaraisK.StandenE. C.Auster-GussmanL. A.RothmanA. J. (2022). The dyadic health influence model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211054897
27.
IrvineE. (2021). The role of replication studies in theory building. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970558
28.
JoinerT. E.Jr.KatzJ. (1999). Contagion of depressive symptoms and mood: Meta-analytic review and explanations from cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal viewpoints. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.6.2.149
29.
KanemasaY.AsanoR.KomuraK. (2017). Aichakufuan to jikoaikeikou wa tekiousei wo sogaisurunoka [Do attachment anxiety and narcissism predict poor adjustment]?Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14966/jssp.1618
30.
KanemasaY.AsanoR.KomuraK.MiyagawaY. (2023). The longitudinal associations between personality traits and psychological intimate partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12869
31.
KawadaT.SuzukiS.KubotaF.OhnishiN.SatohK. (1999). Content and cross validity of the Todai Health Index depression scale in relation to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale. Journal of Occupational Health, 41(3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.41.154
32.
KelleyH. H.BerscheidE.ChristensenA.HarveyJ. H.HustonT. L.LevingerG.McClintockE.PeplauL. A.PetersonD. R. (1983). Close relationships. Freeman.
33.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
34.
KitayamaS.MesquitaB.KarasawaM. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.890
35.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
36.
LedermannT.KennyD. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000290
37.
LucasR. E. (2023). Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231158378
38.
McGorrayE. L.EmeryL. F.Garr-SchultzA.FinkelE. J. (2023). “Mostly White, heterosexual couples”: Examining demographic diversity and reporting practices in relationship science research samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000417
39.
MroczekD. K.KolarzC. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1333–1349. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1333
40.
MulderJ. D.HamakerE. L. (2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738
41.
MurdockK. W.LovejoyM. C.OddiK. B. (2014). An actor-partner interdependence analysis of associations between affect and parenting behavior among couples. Family Process, 53(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12059
42.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2019). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
43.
OishiS. (2009). Shiawase wo kagaku suru: Shirigaku kara wakattakoto [Doing the science of happiness: What we learned from psychology]. Shinyosha.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
46.
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358
47.
OrthU.ErolR. Y.LedermannT.GrobA. (2018). Codevelopment of well-being and self-esteem in romantic partners: Disentangling the effects of mutual influence and shared environment. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000400
48.
OrthU.MeierL. L.BühlerJ. L.DappL. C.KraussS.MesserliD.RobinsR. W. (2024). Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects. Psychological Methods, 29(2), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000499
49.
ParkY.ImpettE. A.MacDonaldG. (2021). Generalizability of results from dyadic data: Participation of one versus two members of a romantic couple is associated with breakup likelihood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220920167
50.
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.1.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
RohrerJ. M.MurayamaK. (2023). These are not the effects you are looking for: Causality and the within-/between-persons distinction in longitudinal data analysis. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 25152459221140842. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221140842
RyffC. D.KitayamS.KarasawaM.MarkusH.KawakamiN.CoeC. (2018). Survey of Midlife in Japan (MIDJA), April-September 2008. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30822.v3
55.
SchimmackU.LucasR. E. (2010). Environmental influences on well-being: A dyadic latent panel analysis of spousal similarity. Social Indicators Research, 98(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9516-8
SonnegaA.FaulJ. D.OfstedalM. B.LangaK. M.PhillipsJ. W.WeirD. R. (2014). Cohort profile: The health and retirement study (HRS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu067
58.
SotoC. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project. Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612
59.
StanleyT. D.CarterE. C.DoucouliagosH. (2018). What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1325–1346. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000169
60.
ThalmayerA. G.ToscanelliC.ArnettJ. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American?American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622
61.
UchidaY.NakayamaM.BowenK. S. (2022). Interdependence of emotion: Conceptualization, evidence, and social implications from cultural psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(5), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221109584
62.
UchidaY.OishiS. (2016). The happiness of individuals and the collective. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12103
63.
UsamiS.TodoN.MurayamaK. (2019). Modeling reciprocal effects in medical research: Critical discussion on the current practices and potential alternative models. PLOS ONE, 14(9), Article e0209133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209133
WeinsteinN.RyanR. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984
66.
WestT.MendesW. B. (2023). Affect contagion: Physiologic covariation and linkage offer insight into socially shared thoughts, emotions, and experiences. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 67, pp. 73–129). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2022.11.002
WortmanJ.LucasR. E. (2016). Spousal similarity in life satisfaction before and after divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000065
69.
WünscheJ.WeidmannR.GrobA. (2020). Until death do us part: The codevelopment of life satisfaction in couples preceding the death of one partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 881–900. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000228
70.
YouyouW.YangY.UzziB. (2023). A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6), Article e2208863120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208863120
71.
YuS.BladerS. L. (2020). Why does social class affect subjective well-being? The role of status and power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853841
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
