Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Aging. 2020 Jul 13;35(7):1041–1049. doi: 10.1037/pag0000560

Growing into Retirement: Longitudinal Evidence for the Importance of Partner Support for Self-Expansion

Jennifer M Tomlinson 1, Brooke C Feeney 2, Brett J Peters 3
PMCID: PMC8344796  NIHMSID: NIHMS1729530  PMID: 32658538

Abstract

Retirement can be a turbulent time of life in which people must navigate changes in their identity from ending a career and beginning a new phase of life. However, retirement can also provide opportunities for growth or self-expansion. We examined the benefits of partner support for self-expansion using longitudinal evidence (at three time points) in a sample of 73 couples. We tested a theoretical model proposing that partner support for self-expansion at Time 1 would predict retirement satisfaction and overall health 1 year later and these effects would be mediated by self-expansion at 6 months. Using structural equation modeling, we found significant indirect effects for both retirement satisfaction and health, supporting all hypotheses. These results suggest that during retirement, partners play an important role in encouraging opportunities for growth as an investment toward future retirement satisfaction and health.

Keywords: Self-Expansion, Retirement, Relationships, Health, Support

Retirement is an important life milestone. Studies on retirement show mixed results for the adjustment of retirees. In some cases, retirement leads to enhanced well-being; in other cases, it can lead to distress (Kim & Moen, 2001; van Solinge & Henkens, 2008; Wang, 2007). One dyadic study using the Health and Retirement Survey found that retirement predicted worse self-reported health for both husband and wife retirees during the first 2 years of retirement (Curl & Townshend, 2014). As the baby boomers reach retirement age, it is essential to identify factors that promote better health and adjustment during this important milestone.

Retirement leads to a shift in social roles, identities, expectations, and relationships (Kim & Moen, 2001; Kupperbusch, Levenson, & Ebling, 2003). This might mean a relief from the stress and demands of a busy career or perhaps the loss of one’s career identity (Kim & Moen, 2002). Retirees are likely to experience a freeing up of time and likely can engage in beneficial activities (Earl, Gerrans, & Halim, 2015). Relationship partners are central during this time, as retirees shift from spending the majority of time at work to being at home, which may mean more time with one’s spouse (Rauer & Jensen, 2016). The current investigation examines how relationship partners might support retirees in seeking out opportunities for self-expansion or growth and thus help retirees flourish rather than falter in retirement.

The Importance of Self-Expansion in Retirement

The self-expansion model proposes that people have a fundamental motivation to expand the self-concept (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013). Self-expansion can occur through relationships or participation in activities that might lead to growth either alone or with a relationship partner. Self-expanding activities are defined as novel and optimally challenging activities that have the potential to lead to self-growth (Aron & Aron, 1986). Examples include taking up a new hobby, learning something interesting, or meeting new people. Previous research with younger couples shows that couples’ shared participation in self-expanding (novel, fun, and interesting) activities benefits relationships (e.g., Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). In addition, self-expansion has been positively associated with relationship satisfaction, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, and personal growth, and negatively associated with stress, loneliness, and negative emotion in undergraduate samples (e.g. Nardone, Lewandowski, & Le, 2008). Although there is some initial evidence that older adults self-expand in a variety of life domains (Harris, Kemmelmeier, & Weiss, 2009) and that attention to the self-concept is important to help deal with loss of professional roles (Price, 2003), no research to our knowledge has specifically considered the importance of self-expansion during retirement. During older adulthood, when many people are in established close relationships, couples are in a unique position to encourage one another to take advantage of opportunities for self-expansion (Mattingly, Tomlinson, & McIntyre, in press).

Though self-expansion has not been directly examined in the context of retirement, there is some research on the importance of leisure activities for recent retirees. For example, participation in clubs and activities predicts retirees’ life satisfaction (Guerriero-Austrom, Perkins, Damush, & Hendrie, 2003), as does spending time on hobbies (Kim & Feldman, 2000). Retirees who participate in cultural and intellectual activities experience high intrinsic motivation for knowledge, stimulation, and accomplishment, which is positively associated with retirement satisfaction (Stephan, Fouquereau, & Fernandez, 2008). We expect that partners play a crucial role in encouraging retirees to seek out opportunities for self-expansion such as leisure activities and other hobbies, which should in turn lead to expansion of the self and satisfaction with retirement.

The importance of self-expansion and growth in older adulthood contrasts with some theories of aging that emphasize maintenance or decline rather than growth. For example, the motivational theory of lifespan development (Heckhausen, Wrosh, & Schulz, 2010) states that as adults age beyond retirement, their potential to bring the environment in line with one’s wishes decreases and goal disengagement may occur. However, some conceptualizations of aging have called for a focus on positive processes that promote growth and well-being (e.g. Ryff, 1995). According to the Selective Optimization with Compensation theory (Freund & Baltes, 2007), goal setting and goal pursuit are key components of successful aging. Although people have fewer growth goals as they age (Baltes, 1997), there is also evidence that self-expansion (Harris et al., 2009) and goals (e.g. Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016; Lang & Carstensen, 2002; Ryff, Kwann, & Singer, 2001) remain important at this life stage. Growth goals give purpose and meaning to life and should allow retirees to continue to thrive (Feeney & Collins, 2015).

The Importance of Partner Support for Self-Expansion Opportunities

The self-expansion model suggests that relationship partners can facilitate self-improvement by providing encouragement for self-expansion opportunities (i.e., partner support for self-expansion; Fivecoat, Tomlinson, Aron, & Caprariello, 2015). The majority of work on self-expansion has focused on the ways in which self-expansion might occur either through relationships or activities, but little work has considered how relationship partners might motivate one another to become self-actualized (Aron et al., 2013). The potential influential role of partner support for self-expansion during retirement is consistent with research highlighting the role that relationships play in providing a secure base for exploration (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010) and encouragement to embrace life opportunities for growth (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Tomlinson, Feeney, & Van Vleet, 2016; Feeney, Van Vleet, Jakubiak, & Tomlinson, 2017). Attachment theory postulates that, throughout the lifespan, relationships underlie feelings of security and enable secure exploratory activities (e.g., Feeney, 2004, 2007). Having a partner who is supportive of personal growth may underlie one’s confidence and ability to engage in self-expansion activities by bolstering feelings of security (Feeney, 2004). Indeed, both newlyweds and older adults show increased daily goal progress and better health when their partners offer support that demonstrates that they are available, encouraging, and nonintrusive (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016). Further, support for goals instills feelings of capability that lead to long-term self-esteem and growth (Tomlinson et al., 2016), and supportive partner behaviors predict spouses’ decisions to embrace a challenging opportunity, which in turn predicts long-term thriving outcomes (Feeney et al., 2017). Partner support for self-expansion has the advantage of providing a positive context for support with less worry about detrimental effects of support (e.g., the recipient feeling incapable or vulnerable), which have been shown to occur in more stressful contexts (such as when one partner has a health issue; e.g. Yorgason & Choi, 2016).

Relationships are closely tied to health, especially during older adulthood (Yorgason & Choi, 2016). Some research has found links between positive marital quality and self-reported health during retirement (e.g., Choi, Yorgason, & Johnson, 2016) such that high-quality relationships may buffer the effects of health stressors (Yorgason & Choi, 2016). However, there has been little focus on the specific features of relationships and types of relational support, such as partner support for self-expansion, that might be useful in promoting self-development during this important time period.

Self-expansion has been linked to treatment adherence and ultimate weight loss in an intervention study, suggesting that it may have links to health (Xu et al., 2017). Those who engage in self-expansion activities (compared to control activities) exert greater effort and experience increases in self-efficacy (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). Thus, both couple members should glean a number of benefits from partner support for self-expansion and participation in self-expanding activities, yet no extant work has studied self-expansion during retirement – a time when retirees lose career opportunities for expansion. There is a great need for research focused on expansion of the self-concept during retirement, particularly dyadic work that examines the influence of close relationship partners. Instead of relying on retrospective self-reports, the current study leverages a longitudinal, dyadic design that examines the extent to which partner support for self-expansion prospectively predicts each partner’s future health and retirement satisfaction. The partner we are considering in this investigation is the spouse, which is likely the closest and most influential relationship during older adulthood (Lang & Carstensen, 2002).

The Current Study

In the current investigation, we test this assertion that partner support for self-expansion should be critical throughout retirement. We followed retirees over the course of a year to examine the extent to which partner support for self-expansion, and actual self-expansion, contributes to overall satisfaction with retirement and health. Figure 1 depicts a theoretical model of the proposed links between partner support for self-expansion and long-term outcomes.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Proposed theoretical model showing the hypothesized longitudinal effects of partner support for self-expansion predicting self-expansion, retirement satisfaction, and health.

Specifically, we examine the extent to which partner support for self-expansion promotes actual self-expansion during retirement, which in turn promotes greater well-being over time. We focus on two key longitudinal indices of well-being during retirement: retirement satisfaction and health. Retirement satisfaction is a domain-specific index of satisfaction with life in key areas during retirement (Floyd et al., 1992). Health in the present study is self-reported physical and psychological health by the retiree and partner.

As depicted in Figure 1, we propose and test the indirect effect of self-expansion on the associations between partner support for self-expansion and retirement satisfaction and health. We hypothesize that partner support for self-expansion at Time 1 will be associated with increased self-expansion at Time 2 (6 months after Time 1; Hypothesis 1a and 2a) and that self-expansion will in turn predict satisfaction with retirement (Hypothesis 1b) and health (Hypothesis 2b) at Time 3 (1 year after Time 1). In addition, we hypothesize that partner support for self-expansion at Time 1 will predict better adjustment to retirement as indexed by increased Time 3 satisfaction with retirement (Hypothesis 1c) and better Time 3 self-reported physical and psychological health (Hypothesis 2c) (1 year later). We expect that the associations between Time 1 partner support for self-expansion and long-term retirement satisfaction and health will be mediated by self-expansion. Further, we expect that the effects of partner support for self-expansion should be significant above and beyond the effects of marital quality.

Method

Participants

This investigation focused on 73 couples (146 individuals) in which both couple members had retired. These couples were part of a larger study of 100 couples (200 individuals). Previous research (Feeney, 2004, 2007) found a medium effect size when assessing the effects of support in a goal context. Thus, assuming a medium effect size, for a power level of .80 with a two-tailed significance level of p < .05, 90 couples (180 individuals) were required. We planned to recruit 150 couples (300 individuals) to allow for attrition (we expected a 20% attrition rate based on previous longitudinal research with older adults; Austin-Wells, McDougal, & Becker, 2006), and expected to have at least 115 couples (230 individuals) complete all three components of the study. The final sample size for this study balanced the resource-intensive methods with statistical power and we continued data collection across the 3 years funded (2010–2013). Of the original sample, 80% (160 individuals) and 69.5% (139 individuals) completed the 6 month and 1 year follow-up, respectively. There were no significant differences in initial levels of partner support for self-expansion, marriage length, retirement length, or any demographic variable for participants who were retained compared to those who did not complete either the 6 month or 1 year follow-up.

To participate in the larger study (which included 200 couples), couples with at least one retiree over the age of 55 and retired within the last two years were recruited. Because the present study focuses on adjustment to retirement, couples with spouses from the larger study who were not retired were excluded.1 Participants self-identified as retired from their original career. The majority had retired completely (56.1%) but some were still working part time (31.7%) or planned to seek out additional work in the future (4.1%). In addition, 8.1% reported ‘other’ due to situations such as involuntary retirement or retirement due to health issues. This definition of retirement is consistent with recent research, which acknowledges that retirement is an ongoing process during which many retirees choose to engage in some work-related activities even after formal retirement (e.g. Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2016). Participants had retired from a variety of careers, but the majority had retired from professional career roles such as a teacher, nurse, architect, or accountant.

The mean age was 64.30 (SD = 5.85) and the majority of participants were Non-Hispanic (98.8%) and White (90.7%) with 7.1% Black, .5% Asian, and 1.6% Other. Median household income was $60,000-$80,000 per year. Couples had been married for an average of 31.23 years (median = 35.04, SD = 14.72).

We recruited participants through email advertisements and flyers posted in local businesses and community centers. In addition, we provided participants with small flyers upon completion of the study and asked them to share information about the study with any friends who may be interested.

Procedure

The study was approved by the Carnegie Mellon University Institutional Review Board and complied with APA ethical standards. Couples completed questionnaire measures in the laboratory (Time 1) and at 6 months (Time 2) and 1 year (Time 3) after the laboratory visit via mail. Other assessments were included at each time point as part of the larger investigation; however, only the measures relevant to this report are discussed here.

Time 1 Measures

Partner support for self-expansion

Partner support for self-expansion was measured with 9 items tapping the extent to which each individual perceived their partner to support their opportunities for growth throughout their relationship (Tomlinson, Fivecoat, & Aron, 2009; α = .88). The content of the items was based on the self-expansion questionnaire (SEQ; Lewandowski & Aron, 2002), which measures the extent to which a relationship is self-expanding, and has been widely used and cited. In writing the items, we took concepts from the self-expansion questionnaire and adapted them to ask about the extent to which one’s partner supports or encourages individual self-expansion. Sample items on the partner support for self-expansion measure include “Imagine that you were given a new and exciting opportunity. How supportive would your partner be of this new opportunity?” and “How much does your partner encourage you to expand upon your interests, hobbies, or goals?” One item (from the original 10 items) decreased the reliability substantially, so we left it out of the scale score (“Imagine that you were asked to do something new that turned out to be difficult for you; how supportive would your partner be in helping you get through it?”). Both couple members rated their partner’s support for self-expansion on a scale from 1 (not very much) to 7 (very much). See the Supplementary Materials for the full measure.

Marital satisfaction.

We measured participants’ marital satisfaction with the Marital Opinion Scale, a 10-item semantic differential scale plus one global question on overall relationship satisfaction (Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986). The scale contains bipolar adjectives to assess participants’ feelings about their marriage. Participants indicated which word better described their marriage by ranking each answer along a 6-point scale with the word pairings as anchors. Pairings included “empty-full”, “interesting-boring”, “miserable-enjoyable”, etc. After completing the word pairings participants were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they have been with their relationship over the past two months on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (completely satisfied) to 6 (completely dissatisfied) (α= .94).

Longitudinal Measures

Time 2.

At the 6-month follow-up, both couple members reported their own current self-expansion (White, Lewandowski, Aron, & Aron, 2004; α = .94). This was assessed with 25 items rated on a scale from 1 (not very true of me) to 7 (very true of me). The items focused on engagement in activities and interests that promote self-expansion. The items are face valid and assess the extent to which the individual sought out a variety of perspectives, interests, and identities that lead to growth. Sample items include, “Recently I have tried to discover new things about myself,” “These days I have sought opportunities to have new experiences,” and “Currently I find I enjoy learning a variety of different perspectives on issues.”

Time 3 measures.

At the 1-year follow-up, retirement satisfaction was assessed using the Retirement Satisfaction Inventory’s (RSI; Floyd et al., 1992) satisfaction with life in retirement subscale, which asks participants to rate satisfaction with 11 different areas of life on a 6-point scale including “my marriage,” “my financial situation,” “my physical health,” “the quality of my residence,” etc. One item regarding satisfaction with “services from community agencies and programs,” reduced the inter-item reliability and was excluded from the scale score (α = .73). Health was assessed using the SF-36 short form health survey (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992), which assesses aspects of both psychological and physical health. This is a widely used measure that includes subscales of physical functioning, physical role functioning (limitations due to health), emotional role functioning (limitations due to mental health), energy/fatigue, social functioning (the impact of health on social activities), pain, general health (overall perceptions), and health change over the past year. Because the subscales functioned similarly, we used an overall mean of all subscales (α = .95). Each couple member reported on their own retirement satisfaction and health.

Results

We used AMOS version 24 to test the hypothesized model using structural equation modeling. To account for the dyadic nature of the data, this analysis used dyad as the unit of analysis and maximum likelihood estimation for the variance covariance matrix. Because both partners completed identical measures, we pooled the paths across men and women by placing equality constraints on the identical paths within the husband and wife models. Before constraining each path, we performed a chi square difference test, and in every case except for one, constraining a regression weight did not increase the chi square significantly. The path from Time 1 partner support for self-expansion to Time 3 health differed significantly between men and women (p < .05). The coefficients for this path revealed a significant association between Time 1 partner support for self-expansion and Time 3 health for men (B = 6.25, p = .002) but not for women (B = −1.14, p = .56). Examination of fit indices revealed that the model was a good fit to the data (comparative fit index [CFI] = 1.00, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .00, χ2 (9) = 3.67, p = .93).

Unstandardized path coefficients are displayed in Figure 2, demonstrating a pattern consistent with hypotheses. As predicted, Time 1 partner support for self-expansion predicted Time 2 self-expansion, which in turn predicted Time 3 retirement satisfaction and health. To examine the indirect effects, we used bootstrapping with 2000 resamples and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals following procedures recommended by Fritz and MacKinnon (2007). The pooled indirect effect for Time 3 retirement satisfaction was significant (ab = .03, SE = .02, 95% CI: [.001, .10], p = .04). The pooled indirect effect for health at Time 3 was also significant (ab = 1.10, SE = .74, 95% CI: [.13, 3.28], p = .02).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Pooled path analyses testing the theoretical model. Unstandardized B’s are given for the mediation model including both Time 3 retirement satisfaction and health as dependent measures. Chi square difference tests revealed that all paths could be constrained across men and women (p < .05) except for the path from Time 1 partner support for self-expansion to Time 3 health, thus that path is reported separately for men/women. The pooled indirect effect for retirement satisfaction was significant (ab = .03, SE = .02, 95% CI: [.001, .10], p = .04). The pooled indirect effect for health was also significant (ab = 1.10, SE = .74, 95% CI: [.13, 3.28], p = .02). *p < .05; **p < .01

To ensure that partner support for self-expansion was having a unique effect, above and beyond the effects of marital quality, we next added marital satisfaction as a control variable in our model. When marital satisfaction was added to the model predicting each of the dependent measures, a gender difference emerged such that the effect of marital satisfaction on retirement satisfaction was stronger for men; that path was allowed to vary in the model and was significant for men but not for women (see Figure 3 for regression coefficients and the complete model). Examination of fit indices revealed that the model was a good fit to the data (comparative fit index [CFI] = 1.00, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .00, χ2 (13) = 10.79, p = .63). In this model, the indirect effects of Time 1 partner support for self-expansion on Time 3 retirement satisfaction and health remained significant. The pooled indirect effect for retirement satisfaction was significant (ab = .05, SE = .03, 95% CI: [.003, .15], p = .03) and the pooled indirect effect for health was also significant (ab = 1.63, SE = 1.08, 95% CI: [.24, 5.08], p = .009).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Pooled path analyses controlling for Time 1 marital satisfaction. Unstandardized B’s are given for the mediation model including both Time 3 retirement satisfaction and health as dependent measures. Chi square difference tests revealed that all paths could be constrained across men and women (p < .05) except for the paths from Time 1 partner support for self-expansion to Time 3 health and from Time 1 marital satisfaction to Time 3 retirement satisfaction, thus these paths are reported separately for men/women. The pooled indirect effect for retirement satisfaction was significant (ab = .05, SE = .03, 95% CI: [.003, .15], p = .03). The pooled indirect effect for health was also significant (ab = 1.63, SE = 1.08, 95% CI: [.24, 5.08], p = .009). *p < .05; **p < .01

Discussion

This was the first comprehensive examination of the role of partner support for self-expansion in retirement. We examined the longitudinal effects of partner support for self-expansion on one’s own self-expansion six months later and adjustment to retirement (as indexed by retirement satisfaction and health) one year later. Previous research has suggested the importance of self-expansion and pursuit of leisure activities during retirement (e.g. Harris et al, 2009; Stephan et al., 2008), but little work had been done to identify factors that would make a retiree more or less likely to pursue such activities.

The present work identified partner support for self-expansion and in turn self-expansion as important factors in determining retirement satisfaction and health. As predicted, results showed that for both partners, Time 1 partner support for self-expansion predicted Time 2 self-expansion, which in turn predicted both Time 3 retirement satisfaction and health (supporting paths H1a-c and H2a-c in Figure 1). There was one sex difference such that the path from Time 2 partner support for self-expansion to Time 3 health was significant for men but not for women. This could be due to the quality of support that wives provide to their spouses or because men rely more heavily on support from their wives because they may not turn to friends for emotional support and disclosure as much as women (Fehr, 1996). More generally, these findings have important theoretical implications and emphasize the centrality of the martial relationship in promoting goals and better health in older adulthood (e.g., Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016; Lang & Carstensen, 2002). These results indicate that relationship partners can help retirees to seek out opportunities for growth during retirement, which is important for successful adjustment to retirement (Stephan et al., 2008).

This work supports Ryff et al’s (2001) notion that growth and goals are essential as people age. In addition, it suggests self-expansion as an underlying mechanism that might explain why being married is associated with better health (Bookwala, 2005). Rauer and Jensen (2016) point out that there is a need for work that takes a more nuanced view of marital quality and aspects of relationships that might contribute to couple health during the retirement years. Our analysis controlling for marital quality suggests that partner support for self-expansion has significant effects above and beyond the effects of marital quality. In addition, the results are consistent with socioemotional selectivity theory (e.g. Lang & Carstensen, 2002) and highlight the importance of the spousal relationship during the retirement years. We identify partner support for self-expansion as a specific type of support that affects important future outcomes. Our results suggest that having a partner who encourages one to seek out opportunities for growth has a positive long-term impact on retirement satisfaction and health.

It is important to note that the size of the indirect effects is relatively small, especially for retirement satisfaction. There are likely many factors that contribute to retirement satisfaction and health. Our focus on partner support for self-expansion identifies one tangible way in which relationship partners can support one another’s adjustment during retirement. We focus here on the positive effects of support because the self-expansion model emphasizes the ways in which relationships can add positive content to the self-concept (Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). However, a lack of support also would be detrimental and would likely have strong effects on satisfaction with retirement and health. Future research should examine specific positive and negative relational behaviors that might each contribute to outcomes.

In addition to advancing theories of aging, this work makes important contributions to relationship research theories. First, it extends the self-expansion model (e.g. Aron et al., 2013) to consider how partner support for self-expansion can affect the amount of self-expansion or growth experienced. Although previous work has focused on how self-expansion can occur through relationships (either through inclusion of the other in the self or participation in shared activities; Aron et al., 2013; Aron et al., 2000), the present research suggests that partners should provide encouragement for self-expansion opportunities outside of the relationship. Previous work shows that individual self-expansion promotes self-esteem and self-efficacy (e.g. Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013), and the present research shows that encouraging a partner to seek out growth opportunities leads to actual self-expansion or growth. Our results using self-reported assessments of partner support for self-expansion are consistent with previous experimental work that has manipulated partner support for self-expansion in the lab, finding effects on relationship satisfaction (Fivecoat et al., 2015). Further, this work establishes current self-expansion as an important mechanism underlying the effects of partner support for self-expansion on retirement satisfaction and health, both of which are important outcomes to consider during the retirement years. Little work has considered health as an outcome of self-expansion (see Xu et al., 2017 for an exception); the present research indicates that self-expansion may lead to flourishing by promoting both retirement satisfaction and health. Finally, this work extends self-expansion research to focus on older adulthood, an age group that has rarely been considered in this literature, which has mostly focused on college students or recently established married couples.

Second, this work is consistent with recent theoretical advancements that emphasize ways in which partners can provide positive forms of support that would lead to thriving (e.g. Feeney & Collins, 2015). This theory and research emphasizes the embracing of life opportunities for growth as an important context for achieving thriving outcomes, as well as the importance of support from close others in facilitating this process. This is also consistent with attachment theory’s notion of close others providing a secure base for exploration, and the importance of this support function from the cradle to the grave (Bowlby, 1988). In addition, this work further establishes the importance of perceptions of partner responsiveness, which are essential for relationship outcomes even more so than actual responsiveness (e.g. Reis, 2007). Moreover, researchers who study goals recognize that people do not pursue their goal strivings in isolation and do so in the context of relationships (Fitzsimmons, Finkel, & VanDellen, 2015). Therefore, in seeking to understand how partners pursue opportunities for growth during retirement, it is important to take a dyadic approach and to consider the relational context in which it is occurring. Third, this work is consistent with a growing body of literature that establishes positive processes within relationships as essential to well-being. Partner support for self-expansion is one way in which partners can build emotional capital, which provides a sort of insurance for when the relationship might face later difficulties (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). By providing partner support for self-expansion, couples can take advantage of opportunities to promote thriving during the retirement years (e.g. Feeney & Collins, 2015).

Implications, Strengths, and Future Directions

Future research should test the effects of support for self-expansion in more diverse samples and other cultures and should consider differential effects of various types of self-expanding activities. It is possible that people from different ethnic groups or cultures may view retirement activities differently. For example, in collectivistic cultures, individual activities might be emphasized less than those that benefit the larger family unit. It is also possible that the sex differences for the path from partner support for self-expansion to health could be due to cohort effects, which may dissipate over time in samples where work and career have been equally important to women and men. Future research should consider whether support for self-expanding opportunities is equally important for people retiring from professional careers (that are a large part of their identity) versus for people retiring from non-professional careers that were not part of their identity. Retirement from a professional career may result in a loss of self-expansion due to a loss of activities that might promote growth and access to a broader social network. Retirement from a non-professional career may not result in as much loss of self-expansion if the career was not a source of growth, but it would still likely result in a reduced social network. People retiring from non-professional careers might be especially interested in opportunities for self-expansion that they did not have time for while working. Though retiring from both professional and non-professional careers would provide an opportunity for seeking out growth, the self-expansion may be needed for different reasons. Future research also should consider other important outcome variables that are likely to contribute to what makes people happy in retirement, such as purpose in life and subjective well-being.

This study has several strengths. First, it uses a sample of community couples during a critical life stage in which support for self-expansion is likely to be especially important. Second, it emphasizes the importance of relationship processes during older adulthood and identifies a specific form of support (partner support for self-expansion) that benefits older adults during retirement. This work is timely as a large portion of the population will reach retirement age in upcoming years. It suggests a way in which relationship partners might help retirees find ways to replace opportunities for growth that may be lost during retirement. Retirement represents an opportunity to engage in novel, challenging, and interesting activities. We hope that this work will provide a foundation for future research that considers the importance of relationships for retirees’ engagement in activities that promote growth and fulfillment.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging (F32AG037262) and the Berkman Faculty Development Fund at Carnegie Mellon University. We would like to thank all of the research assistants who helped with this study at all levels. In particular, we are grateful to Rachel Brown, Skye Challener, James Colmar, Danica Stewart, Abby Yosaitis, and Yiyue Zhang. We are also grateful to Edward Lemay for his statistical advice. Earlier versions of this work were presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual meetings in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2019 and at the Gerontological Society of America annual meeting in 2013.

Footnotes

1

The results are similar with all participants included (with the non-retired spouse reporting on perceptions of the partner’s satisfaction for retirement satisfaction if they themselves have not yet retired). However, given the goal of focusing on retirees, we left non-retired spouses out of our analysis.

Contributor Information

Jennifer M. Tomlinson, Colgate University, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences

Brooke C. Feeney, Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Psychology

Brett J. Peters, Ohio University, Department of Psychology

References

  1. Aron A & Aron EN (1986). Love and the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aron A, Lewandowski GW Jr., Mashek D, & Aron EN (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In Simpson JA & Campbell L (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships. (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN, McKenna C, & Heyman RE (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin-Wells V, McDougall GJ, & Becker H (2006). Recruiting and retaining an ethnically diverse sample of older adults in a longitudinal intervention study. Educational Gerontology, 32, 159–170. doi: 10.1080/03601270500388190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baltes PB (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bookwala J (2005). The role of marital quality in physical health during the mature years. Journal of Aging and Health, 17, 85–104. doi: 10.1177/0898264304272794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowlby J (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cahill KE, Giandrea MD & Quinn JF (2016). Evolving patterns of work and retirement. In George LK & Ferraro KF (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (8th ed.) (pp. 271–291). NY: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  9. Choi H, Yorgason JB, & Johnson DR (2016). Marital quality and health in middle and later adulthood: Dyadic associations. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(1), 154–164. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Curl AL, & Townsend AL (2014). A multilevel dyadic study of the impact of retirement on self-rated health: Does retirement predict worse health in married couples?. Research on Aging, 36(3), 297–321. doi: 10.1177/0164027513486900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Earl JK, Gerrans P, & Halim VA (2015). Active and adjusted: Investigating the contribution of leisure, health and psychosocial factors to retirement adjustment. Leisure Sciences, 37(4), 354–372. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1021881 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Feeney BC (2004). A secure base: responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feeney BC (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 268–285. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Feeney BC, & Lemay EP Jr. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1004–1017. doi: 10.1177/0146167212442971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Feeney BC, & Collins NL (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147. doi: 10.1177/1088868314544222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Feeney BC, & Thrush RL (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57–76. doi: 10.1037/a0016961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, & Vandellen MR (2015). Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122, 648–673. doi: 10.1177/0963721417754199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fivecoat HC, Tomlinson JM, Aron A, & Caprariello PA (2015). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(3), 368–385. doi: 10.1177/0265407514533767 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Feeney BC, Van Vleet M, Jakubiak B, & Tomlinson JM (2017). Predicting the pursuit and support of challenging life opportunities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1171–1187. doi: 10.1177/0146167217708575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fehr B (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  21. Floyd FJ, Haynes SN, Doll ER, Winemiller D, Lemsky C, Burgy TM, Werle M, & Heilman N (1992). Assessing retirement satisfaction and perceptions of retirement experiences. Psychology and Aging, 7, 609–621. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.7.4.609 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Freund AM, & Baltes PB (2007). Toward a theory of successful aging: Selection, optimization, and compensation. In Fernández-Ballesteros R (Ed.), Geropsychology: European perspectives for an aging world (pp. 239–254). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fritz MS, & MacKinnon DP (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 1467–9280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guerriero-Austrom M, Perkins AJ, Damush TM, & Hendrie HC (2003). Predictors of life satisfaction in retired physicians and spouses. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 134–141. doi: 10.1007/s00127-003-0610-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris SG, Kemmelmeier M, & Weiss LJ (2009). Do older adults (still) self-expand? Initial findings across six domains with adults aged 50+. Society of Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting. Tampa, FL. [Google Scholar]
  26. Heckhausen J, Wrosch C & Schulz R (2010). A motivational theory of lifespan development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60. doi: 10.1037/a0017668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Huston T, McHale S, & Crouter A (1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In Gilmour R & Duck SW (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakubiak BK, & Feeney BC (2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 317–340. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim S, & Feldman DC (2000). Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge employment and its consequences for the quality of life in retirement. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1195–1210. doi: 10.2307/1556345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim JE, & Moen P (2001). Is retirement good or bad for subjective well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 83–86. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim JE, & Moen P (2002). Retirement transitions, gender, and psychological well-being: A life-course, ecological model. Journal of Gerontology, 57, 212–222. doi: 10.1093/geronb/57.3.P212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kupperbusch C, Levenson RW, & Ebling R (2003). Predicting husbands’ and wives’ retirement satisfaction from the emotional qualities of marital interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 335–354. doi: 10.1177/0265407503020003004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lang FR, & Carstensen LL (2002). Time counts: Future Time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17, 125–139. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewandowski GW, & Aron A (2002). The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mattingly BA, & Lewandowski GW Jr. (2013). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2012.718863 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mattingly BA, Lewandowski GW Jr., & McIntyre KP (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176–190. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mattingly B, Tomlinson JM, & McIntyre K (in press). Advances in Self-Expansion. To appear in L. Vanderdrift , Agnew C, & Arriaga X (Eds.) Advances in Personal Relationships. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1177/0265407518768079 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nardone N, Lewandowski GW, & Le B (2008). The relation of self-expansion to well-being and relationship quality. Society of Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting. Albuquerque, NM. [Google Scholar]
  40. Price CA (2003). Professional women’s retirement adjustment: The experience of reestablishing order. Journal of Aging Studies, 17(3), 341–355. doi: 10.1016/S0890-4065(03)00026-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rauer A, & Jensen JF (2016). These happy golden years? The role of retirement in marital quality. In Bookwala J (Ed.), Couple relationships in the middle and later years: Their nature, complexity, and role in health and illness (pp. 157–176). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14897-009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Reis HT (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ryff CD (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 99–104. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ryff CD, Kwan CML, & Singer BH (2001). Personality and aging: Flourishing agendas and future challenges. In Birren JE & Schaie KW (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (pp. 477–499). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stephan Y, Fouquereau E, & Fernandez A (2008). The relation between self-determination and retirement satisfaction among active retired individuals. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 66, 329–345. doi: 10.2190/AG.66.4.d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tomlinson JM, Feeney BC, & Van Vleet M (2016). A longitudinal investigation of relational catalyst support of goal strivings. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 246–257. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1048815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tomlinson JM, Fivecoat HC, & Aron A (2009). The benefits of partner support for self-expansion opportunities. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL. [Google Scholar]
  48. van Solinge H, & Henkens K (2008). Adjustment to and satisfaction with retirement: Two of a kind? Psychology and Aging, 23, 422–434. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ware JE, & Sherbourne CD (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang M (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process: Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees’ psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 455–474. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. White C, Lewandowski GW, Aron A, & Aron E (2004). Development and validation of the state measure of self-expansion motivation. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX. [Google Scholar]
  52. Xu X, Leahey TM, Boguszewski K, Krupel K, Mailloux KA, & Wing RR (2017). Self-expansion is associated with better adherence and obesity treatment outcomes in adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51(1), 13–17. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9823-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yorgason JB & Choi H (2016). Health contributions to marital quality: Expected and unexpected links. In Bookwala J (Ed.), Couple relationships in the middle and later years: Their nature, complexity, and role in health and illness (pp. 177–196). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14897-009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1729530-supplement-Supplemental_Material.pdf (135.4KB, pdf)

RESOURCES