Author
Listed:
- Karolina Kolodziejczak
- Johanna Drewelies
- Theresa Pauly
- Nilam Ram
- Christiane Hoppmann
- Denis Gerstorf
Abstract
ObjectivesPhysical intimacy is important for communicating affection in romantic relationships. Theoretical and empirical work highlights linkages between physical intimacy, affect, and physiological stress among young and middle-aged adults, but not older adults. We examine physical intimacy and its associations with positive and negative affect and cortisol levels in the daily lives of older couples.MethodsWe applied actor–partner multilevel models to repeated daily-life assessments of physical intimacy (experienced and wished) and affect obtained 6 times a day over 7 consecutive days from 120 older heterosexual German couples (Mage = 71.6, SDage = 5.94). Physiological stress was indexed as total daily cortisol output, the area under the curve with respect to ground (AUCg).ResultsPhysical intimacy experienced and wished were reported at the vast majority of occasions, but to different degrees at different times. Within persons, in moments when participants experienced more physical intimacy, older women reported less negative affect, whereas older men reported more positive affect. Between persons, higher overall levels of physical intimacy experienced were associated with higher positive affect and less negative affect among women and with lower daily cortisol output among men. A stronger wish for intimacy was related to more negative affect among both women and men, and to higher daily cortisol output among men.DiscussionPhysical intimacy is linked with mood and stress hormones in the daily life of older couples. We consider routes for future inquiry on physical intimacy among older adults.
Suggested Citation
Karolina Kolodziejczak & Johanna Drewelies & Theresa Pauly & Nilam Ram & Christiane Hoppmann & Denis Gerstorf, 2022.
"Physical Intimacy in Older Couples’ Everyday Lives: Its Frequency and Links With Affect and Salivary Cortisol,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 77(8), pages 1416-1430.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:77:y:2022:i:8:p:1416-1430.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:77:y:2022:i:8:p:1416-1430.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.