Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Gerontologist logoLink to The Gerontologist
. 2022 Apr 16;62(10):1486–1495. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnac053

When Harry Met Sally: Older Adult Spouses’ First Encounter Reminiscing and Well-Being

Emily L Mroz 1,✉, Maya Shah 2, Hanzhen Lan 3, Ajua Duker 4, Maria Sperduto 5, Becca R Levy 6, Joan K Monin 7
Editor: Suzanne Meeks
PMCID: PMC9710240  PMID: 35429275

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Interest in reminiscence activities for older adults has grown in recent years, but the benefits of co-reminiscence are not well-known. Drawing from a narrative identity framework, this study examined older adult spouses’ co-reminiscence about their first encounters. We hypothesized that perceived closeness and support increase when spouses co-reminisce and that greater perceptions of closeness and support after reminiscing relate to lower depressive symptoms and greater marital satisfaction in daily life.

Research Design and Methods

One hundred and one couples completed questionnaires measuring marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms at home and then participated in a laboratory session in which they co-reminisced about their first encounters. Self-reported perceived support and relationship closeness were obtained before and after reminiscence. t Tests and the Actor Partner Interdependence Model were used to examine hypotheses.

Results

As hypothesized, closeness and perceived support increased from pre- to postreminiscence for husbands and wives. In addition, one’s own relationship closeness after reminiscence was positively associated with own marital satisfaction (actor effect). One’s perceived support after reminiscence was positively related to spouse’s marital satisfaction and negatively associated with their spouse’s depressive symptoms (partner effects).

Discussion and Implications

Findings suggest that co-reminiscence about early relationship development can boost feelings of closeness and support for older adults. Benefiting from co-reminiscence in this way also appears to indicate broader relationship and individual well-being. Brief co-reminiscence activities may nurture late-life relational well-being.

Keywords: Depression, Marital satisfaction, Narrative identity, Reminiscence

Memories of personal experiences contribute to a larger narrative identity, constructed from stories each person maintains about themselves and their relationships with others (e.g., story of the self as a daughter, as an employee, as a romantic partner; Dunlop, 2017). More than just enlightening anecdotes about the self, vivid personal memories appear to dictate important health and well-being outcomes in everyday life (Adler et al., 2016) and have consequences for relationship satisfaction (e.g., Dunlop et al., 2020). For example, an individual’s understanding of their relationship with their partner is dependent, in part, on the memories they recall and share about the relationship (Bühler & Dunlop, 2019). However, little is known about whether, or in what ways, relationship memories are exchanged with partners to promote personal or relationship well-being. Recent theoretical perspectives advocate for application of a narrative identity framework to the study of close relationships (Dunlop et al., 2017), and this framework scaffolds our investigation of ways that exchanging relationship memory narratives with a partner affect individual and relational well-being in late-life marriage.

Memories about marriage are likely relevant to the life stories of married couples across adulthood but may be particularly influential to the health and well-being of older adults, who have often been married for much of their lives, and who rely strongly on life review and reminiscence to address psychological needs (Cappeliez et al., 2008; Merriam, 1989). As gerontologists endeavor to define cost-effective resources for maintenance of individual and relational well-being across late life, closer examination of the use of personal memories is warranted. The present study adopts a narrative identity approach and leverages an Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) to examine how factors relevant to participation in a co-reminiscence activity that prompts first encounter recall relate to individual and relational well-being in older adults both intrapersonally and interpersonally.

First Encounter Memories in Spousal Co-reminiscing

At a general level, the content of recalled relationship memories is associated with relationship quality, secure attachment, relational intimacy, and relationship health (Alea & Bluck, 2007; Dunlop et al., 2020; Philippe et al., 2013). The early period of one’s spousal relationship is a salient phase of one’s life and typically involves highly positive memories (Thomsen et al., 2011). Memories from first encounters with a spouse likely contribute to one’s larger life story, guiding feelings about both the self and the spouse. Past research with individual participants substantiates these notions: first dates are considered key events in accounts of relationships which follow typical trajectories (Dunlop et al., 2017), and happy first encounter memories give people a hopeful and lasting image of their relationship (Belove, 1980).

We consider that memories may not just be recalled privately, but shared verbally, often with a spouse. Sharing of mutually recalled memories together with another is a common activity for older adult couples (Butler, 2002). In co-reminiscing with a spouse, memories from key scenes in the relationship (i.e., relationship-defining memories; Alea & Vick, 2010) may be shared and contribute to relationship satisfaction. It remains unknown how felt closeness with a spouse and support from the spouse are affected by co-reminiscence, or whether these state-like factors are indicative of broader individual and relational well-being.

Markers of Relational and Individual Well-Being in Older Adulthood

Marital satisfaction is a hallmark of psychological well-being in later life. Older adults often prioritize close relationships, such as spousal partnerships, in effort to maximize social and emotional gain in the face of limited time left in life (Carstensen, 1992). These relationships appear vital to health: high levels of marital happiness contribute more to reduced morbidity and mortality than satisfaction with other kinds of social relationships (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). For example, older couples with positive marital relationships have better sleep (Chen et al., 2015) and fewer functional limitations (Choi et al., 2016). Laboratory research on marital satisfaction largely focuses on behaviors during conflict (e.g., negative reciprocity, active listening; Gill et al., 1999; Henry et al., 2007). Research on positive exchanges, such as co-reminiscence, as determinants of marital satisfaction is less common.

Reminiscence behaviors may also contribute to individual well-being, such as depressive symptoms, in older adulthood (Westerhof et al., 2019). Depression is both a debilitating condition and a sign of poor adaptation to age-related life challenges (Fiske et al., 2009). Depression among older adults is considered a widespread public health concern as it is associated with decreased functioning and self-neglect. Reminiscence activities are common strategies used to address depression in late life (e.g., Bohlmeijer et al., 2017), though the effects of co-reminiscence activities between older adult relationship partners are largely unknown. More generally, spousal support buffers individual differences that are associated with depression. For example, older adults who are less socially active are more likely to be depressed, but the association is weakened by strong and positive ties to spouses (Holtfreter et al., 2017). It is possible that co-reminiscing activities between spouses are one way in which spousal ties protect against depression in late life.

The Present Study

This study examined changes in feelings of closeness and perceived support from before to after co-reminiscing about one’s first encounter with their spouse. We also used the APIM (Kashy & Kenny, 2000) to examine intrapersonal (actor effects) and interpersonal (partner effects) associations in how perceived closeness and support after co-reminiscing in the laboratory related to each partner’s broader individual and relational well-being (i.e., depression, marital satisfaction), measured at home (See Figure 1). The main hypothesis was that, following co-reminiscence, closeness and perceived support would increase from baseline. Secondary hypotheses were that higher perceived support and closeness after co-reminiscence would be associated with (a) greater reports of marital satisfaction and (b) lower depressive symptoms for themselves and their spouses in everyday life (controlling for baseline reports of perceived support and closeness).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Example of the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (Model 1).

Method

Participants

Couples (N = 101) were recruited from newspaper advertisements and community bulletins and were unaware of the study hypotheses. Eligibility included that both individuals in the couple were above 50 years old and able to engage in co-reminiscence activities. Participants were told during the consent process that the study was about how couples support each other with their health, and they were debriefed at the end of the study. Eligibility criteria included that couples had lived together for at least 6 months and neither partner was taking beta-blockers, because this medication affects heart rate, which was a measure in the primary study (see Monin et al. 2019). One couple completed only the background questionnaires, and two couples included one partner who was not yet 50 years old. The remaining 98 couples (N = 196) met eligibility criteria and were included in analyses. All were in heterosexual relationships due to the focus on female and male gender roles in the primary study. This study was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Procedure

Background questionnaire

A questionnaire was sent to participants through the mail to assess sociodemographics, health, and relationship details 1 week before the laboratory session. Marital satisfaction and depression were measured at this point. Participants were asked to complete the surveys on their own and not to share responses with their spouses. They were asked to bring in the completed surveys to the laboratory session.

Laboratory session

The laboratory consisted of a room with two comfortable chairs and a removable partition between the chairs that was used to minimize communication during the baseline period. Participants in all conditions completed two task periods: (1) baseline period (6 min) and (2) “first encounter” discussion period (6 min).

  • (1) Baseline period: Partners were seated in the same room but were separated by the partition to minimize communication. They were asked to sit quietly without speaking for 6 min. Baseline self-reported perceived support and closeness to their partner were measured after this period.

  • (2) First encounter discussion period: The partition was removed, and couples were asked to talk about how they first met. In this task, couples were asked to each answer the three questions by sharing out loud with each other. Partners took turns answering each question in alternating 1-min intervals, and whether the husband or wife was instructed to speak first was counterbalanced and assigned randomly with a random digit generator. Because of this turn-taking approach, partners heard each other’s responses and could elaborate on details or clarify small inconsistencies during their own responses. To control the flow of conversation and allow for equal timesharing, the experimenter used a remote light that flashed each minute to indicate that it was time for the next partner to speak. Prompting memory sharing using specific question prompts and giving a set amount of time to share mirrors previous research on narration of autobiographical memories (Mroz et al., 2020), including relationship memories (e.g., Alea & Bluck, 2007). It was also necessary for practicing controlling partner speaking opportunity time for the physiological outcomes in other tasks in the larger study (Monin et al., 2019). This portion of the study was recorded with participants’ consent. Postdiscussion perceived support and closeness to the partner were measured after this period. The discussion questions were:

    • (a) How did you meet? How were you introduced?

    • (b) What did you think of your partner initially? How do you think your partner felt about you?

    • (c) Where did you go on your first date? What did you do? How did you feel?

Measures

Marital satisfaction

Marital satisfaction was assessed using the 16-item Locke and Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959). This measure assesses several aspects of marital quality including general level of marital happiness on scales from 1 (very unhappy) to 7 (perfectly happy) and spousal agreement on issues such as handling family finances, matters of recreation, friends, and sexual relations on scales from 1 (always disagree) to 6 (always agree). The remaining multiple-choice items assessed views about the partner and disagreement, and values were assigned to each choice according to the scoring algorithm (Jiang et al., 2013). The mean marital satisfaction was 94.27 (SD = 15.64) for husbands and 93.19 (SD = 16.06) for wives.

Depressive symptoms

Depressive symptoms were assessed with the revised 20-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression scale (Radloff, 1977). This measure assesses symptoms associated with depression such as restless sleep, negative perception about future, and feeling lonely or fearful on scales from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (all of the time). The final score equals to the sum of items. The mean depressive symptoms score was 28.53 (SD = 7.37) for husbands and 28.60 (SD = 7.86) for wives.

Relationship closeness

The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS) was used (Aron et al., 1992) to assess relationship closeness before and after the discussion. The IOS is a single-item, pictorial measure that is well accepted for measuring a sense of closeness with another individual. Participants chose the picture which best described their relationship with their spouse from a series of seven Venn-like diagrams depicting linear, progressive degrees of overlap between circles labeled “Self” and “Other.” The scale is scored from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (almost complete overlap). This measure has been used to examine short-term change (Aron et al., 1997); thus, relationship closeness was assessed separately before and after discussion using IOS. The mean self-reported relationship closeness for husbands was 5.44 (SD = 1.51) from baseline and 5.85 (SD = 1.31) after the first encounter discussion, while for wives it was 5.11 (SD = 1.57) and 5.40 (SD = 1.57).

Perceived support

Perceived support was measured before and after the discussion with a 100-mm visual analogue scale asking participants “How supported do you feel in the relationship with your partner right now?” Participants responded by placing an X on the line where the left side was labeled “not at all supported” and the right side was labeled “very supported.” Scores were calculated as a percentage (mm from the beginning of the line to the X divided by the mm of the entire line). The mean perceived support value for husbands was 0.87 (SD = 0.19) from baseline and 0.89 (SD = 0.17) after the first encounter discussion, while for wives it was 0.84 (SD = 0.22) and 0.88 (SD = 0.18).

Covariates

Sociodemographics and marital length (in months) were included in analyses.

Data Analysis

Preliminary analyses

To examine potential confounds, Pearson correlations were run between age, marital length, marital satisfaction, depressive symptoms, postdiscussion closeness, and postdiscussion perceived support. Spearman’s rank test was used for associations with education. T tests were used to examine differences by gender in the main study variables.

Test of primary hypothesis

Paired t tests were conducted separately for husbands and wives examining changes in perceived support and closeness from pre- to postdiscussions.

Test of secondary hypotheses

Dyadic analysis was used in SPSS to test whether the postdiscussion closeness and perceived support were associated with (a) marital satisfaction and (b) depressive symptoms. The APIM (Kashy & Kenny, 2000) with the mixed model procedure was used to deal with the interdependency of the dyadic data. The “actor effect” examines the association between one’s feelings of closeness and perceived support after the discussion and one’s own self-reports of marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms, while the “partner effect” can be used to examine the association between one’s closeness and perceived support after the discussion and spouse’s self-reports of marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms. Gender interactions were explored, but not predicted.

Content analysis of co-reminiscence

To give a sense of co-reminiscence discussion content, two authors conducted exploratory content analysis of audio-recorded co-reminiscence discussions. They first developed a codebook informed by previous literature and through thematic exploration of a subset of the transcripts. Once thematic exploration yielded consistent themes in line with the discussion prompts, coders trained toward reliability. Each coder independently coded 25% of all transcripts, and coders met to resolve discrepancies. The remaining codes were completed by one coder only, with third-coder resolution of inconsistencies. Coded content included: information about attraction to one’s partner (i.e., attraction–intellectual, attraction–physical) and instances where experiences were clearly not positive (i.e., discomfort on date, negative first impression). Coders assigned a code of 1 to each participant whose reminiscence involved a given theme and a zero on all occasions where the theme was not present. Note that analysis was exploratory, not hypothesis-driven, and is meant to describe content of co-reminiscence to confirm expectations about narratives (e.g., that they are largely highly positive) without statistical comparison of frequencies across contexts. See Supplementary Table 1 for details from this analysis (i.e., reliability kappas, exemplar quotes).

Results

Participant and Co-reminiscence Content Characteristics

See Table 1 for participant characteristics. The mean age of husbands was 70.03 (SD = 7.66) years old, while the mean age of wives was 67.4 (SD = 7.14) years old. Most couples were well-educated (i.e., with 65.8% holding a bachelor’s degree or higher). The percentage of White participants was 92.9% for males and 96.9% for females, and 88.8% males and 86.7% females had at least some college experience. About half of the participants were retired (55.1% of males and 50% of females), and 30.5% reported an annual household income of over $100,000. The mean marital length was 429.44 months (35.79 years, SD = 176.03).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics

Variable Wives (N = 98) Husbands (N = 98) Couples (N = 98)
Age in years (SD) 67.40 ± (7.14) 70.03 ± (7.66)
 Range 51–89 56–90
Race
 White, Caucasian 95 (96.9%) 91 (92.9%)
 Black, African American 0 (0%) 1 (1.0%)
 Asian 0 (0%) 1 (1.0%)
 No primary group 3 (3.1%) 5 (5.1%)
Education
 Less than high school 0 (0%) 1 (1%)
 High school 13 (13.3%) 10 (10.2%)
 Some college credit 13 (13.3%) 15 (15.3%)
 Associate’s degree 8 (8.2%) 7 (7.1%)
 Bachelor’s degree 15 (15.3%) 21 (21.4%)
 Some graduate school 17 (17.3%) 13 (13.3%)
 Professional degree 32 (32.7%) 31 (31.6%)
Employment
 Employed for pay, full-time 14 (14.3%) 15 (15.3%)
 Employed for pay, part-time 20 (20.4%) 24 (24.5%)
 Homemaker 8 (8.2%) 0 (0%)
 Retired 49 (50.0%) 54 (55.1%)
 Unemployed 6 (6.1%) 5 (5.1%)
 Self employed 1 (1.0%) 0 (0%)
Household incomea
 <$10,000 2 (2.1%)
 $10,000–$39,999 16 (17.0%)
 $40,000–$69,999 27 (28.5%)
 $70,000–$99,999 21 (22.1%)
 $100,000 or more 29 (30.5%)
Open in a new tab

Notes: SD, standard deviation. Couples were married for an average of 429.44 months (SD = 176.03; range = 28–743).

aReported for the couple using husbands’ report. There were no major discrepancies.

Content analysis of reminiscence transcripts revealed that both men and women recalled episodic details about first encounters. They described a variety of precursors for romantic interest, commonly including physical attraction, but also intellectual attraction. Discomfort and negative first impressions were uncommon (see Supplementary Table 1).

Examining Potential Confounders

As shown in Tables 2 and 3, for demographics, husbands who were older reported fewer depressive symptoms in the background questionnaires and higher closeness after discussion. Additionally, husbands and wives with higher levels of education both reported fewer depressive symptoms, while longer marital length was associated with fewer depressive symptoms among husbands only. As for gender differences, husbands reported significantly higher closeness after the discussion (t = −2.46, p = .016) than wives did. Taken together, we controlled for role (husband or wife), age, and baseline closeness or perceived support in each APIM model.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Age, Education, Marital Length, Baseline Characteristics and Marital Satisfaction, Depressive Symptoms and Characteristics After Discussion for Husbands

Variable Marital satisfaction Depression P IOS P supp
Age 0.16 −0.20* 0.22* −0.02
Educationa 0.09 −0.36*** −0.01 −0.02
Marital length 0.04 −0.21* 0.13 −0.04
B IOS 0.48*** −0.18 0.83*** 0.52***
B supp 0.50*** −0.03 0.62*** 0.92***
Open in a new tab

Notes: B = baseline; IOS = relationship closeness; P = postdiscussion; supp = perceived support.

aSpearman’s rho.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Correlations Between Age, Education, Marital Length, Baseline Characteristics and Marital Satisfaction, Depressive Symptoms and Characteristics After Discussion for Wives

Variable Marital satisfaction Depression P IOS P supp
Age 0.14 −0.18 0.02 −0.04
Educationa −0.04 −0.19 −0.25* −0.04
Marital length 0.12 −0.03 0.07 −0.19
B IOS 0.50*** −0.12 0.79*** 0.59***
B supp 0.59*** −0.05 0.62*** 0.82***
Open in a new tab

Notes: B = baseline; IOS = relationship closeness; P = postdiscussion; supp = perceived support.

aSpearman’s rho.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Main Analyses

Main hypothesis: Changes in closeness and perceived support from pre- to post-first encounter discussion

As hypothesized, each spouses’ own feelings of closeness significantly increased from pre- to postdiscussion, husbands: t(95) = 4.73, p < .001; wives: t(95) = 2.63, p = .005. The same was true for pre- to post-perceived support, husbands: t(95) = 1.86, p = .03; wives: t(95) = 2.69, p = .004. We conducted repeated-measures analysis with gender as the between-subjects factor for closeness and support to examine whether effects were greater for husbands or wives but found no evidence of gender effects: closeness F(1, 82.06) = 1.02, p = .31; support F(1, 190) = 1.92, p = .17).

Secondary hypothesis A: First encounter responses and marital satisfaction in everyday life

The main hypothesis was partially supported. According to Model 1 (depicted in Table 4), actor self-reported closeness after the first encounter discussion was positively associated with marital satisfaction, controlling for baseline closeness (B = 3.455, p = .004). According to Model 2 (depicted in Table 4), partner perceived support after the first encounter discussion was positively related to actor marital satisfaction, controlling for baseline perceived support (B = 21.601, p = .049). There were no significant gender differences (see Supplementary Table 2).

Table 4.

Actor Partner Interdependence Model: Estimates of Fixed Effects on Marital Satisfaction and Depressive Symptoms

Parameter Estimate SE df t p 95% CI
LL UL
Marital satisfaction and relationship closeness (Model 1)
 Intercept 43.44 11.75 103.82 3.70 .00 20.14 66.75
 Role 0.86 2.04 91.00 0.42 .67 −3.20 4.92
 Actor P IOS 3.46 1.17 158.36 2.96 .00 1.15 5.76
 Partner P IOS 1.10 1.17 157.71 0.95 .35 −1.20 3.40
 Actor age 0.11 0.20 123.31 0.58 .57 −0.28 0.51
 Partner age 0.04 0.20 123.43 0.20 .85 −0.35 0.43
 Actor B IOS 1.66 1.12 175.62 1.49 .14 −0.54 3.86
 Partner B IOS 0.79 1.11 175.21 0.71 .48 −1.41 2.99
Marital satisfaction and perceived support (Model 2)
 Intercept 19.31 12.06 104.79 1.60 .11 −4.59 43.22
 Role 0.47 2.07 91.27 0.23 .82 −3.64 4.57
 Actor P supp 15.47 10.46 143.67 1.48 .14 −5.21 36.14
 Partner P supp 21.60 10.87 158.43 1.99 .04 0.14 43.07
 Actor age 0.24 0.20 118.59 1.20 .23 −0.16 0.63
 Partner age 0.13 0.20 115.48 0.65 .52 −0.26 0.52
 Actor B supp 23.92 9.31 140.07 2.57 .01 5.51 42.33
 Partner B supp −5.27 9.69 154.46 −0.54 .59 −24.41 13.87
Depressive symptoms and relationship closeness (Model 3)
 Intercept 45.57 6.52 102.55 6.99 <.01 32.64 58.51
 Role −0.21 1.14 91.37 −0.19 .85 −2.48 2.05
 Actor P IOS −0.03 0.66 164.36 −0.05 .96 −1.33 1.26
 Partner P IOS −0.46 0.64 151.08 −0.72 .47 −1.73 0.80
 Actor age −0.14 0.11 121.87 −1.27 .21 −0.36 0.08
 Partner age −0.04 0.11 124.43 −0.33 .74 −0.26 0.18
 Actor B IOS −0.50 0.62 178.21 −0.80 .43 −1.73 0.73
 Partner B IOS 0.12 0.62 170.01 0.20 .85 −1.10 1.34
Depressive symptoms and perceived support (Model 4)
 Intercept 48.55 7.19 100.04 6.75 .00 34.27 62.82
 Role −0.31 1.13 91.46 −0.27 .79 −2.56 1.94
 Actor P supp −1.43 6.28 161.20 −0.23 .82 −13.83 10.96
 Partner P supp −12.38 5.98 143.27 −2.07 .04 −24.19 −0.57
 Actor age −0.16 0.11 120.03 −1.49 .14 −0.38 0.05
 Partner age −0.05 0.11 124.38 −0.49 .63 −0.27 0.17
 Actor B supp 1.45 5.58 159.22 0.26 .80 −9.57 12.47
 Partner B supp 7.27 5.30 140.99 1.37 .17 −3.21 17.75
Open in a new tab

Notes: B = baseline; CI = confidence interval; IOS = relationship closeness; LL = lower limit; P = postdiscussion; SE = standard error; supp = perceived support; UL = upper limit. Bolded rows indicate significant predictor variables.

Secondary hypothesis B: First encounter responses and depressive symptoms in everyday life

The main hypothesis was partially supported. According to Model 3 (depicted in Table 4), the associations for closeness were not significant. According to Model 4 (depicted in Table 4), partner perceived support after the first encounter discussion was negatively associated with actor depressive symptoms, controlling for baseline perceived support (B = −12.378, p = .040). There were no significant gender differences (see Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

The popularity of reminiscence activities for older adults has increased substantially in recent years (Tam et al., 2020). To date, mechanisms of productive reminisce across adulthood are not well-understood, and models which account for co-reminiscing behaviors are particularly scarce. Investigation of co-reminiscence in a laboratory setting allowed for careful examination of two factors likely to influence individual and relational well-being (i.e., relationship closeness and perceived support) both before and after the reminiscence activity. Content analysis demonstrated that asking participants to co-reminiscence about first encounter memories often results in the exchange of positive memories (i.e., I think I knew instantly that I had seen my cosmic twin, the love of my life) and rarely involves evoking negative first impressions (i.e., he was kind of disheveled and eccentric looking; see Supplementary Table 1).

Results demonstrate that, in this sample of couples with high baseline relationship closeness and perceived support, co-reminiscence activities are associated with enhancement of both feelings of closeness and support, and that high postreminiscence closeness and support have positive associations with well-being. Findings are indicative of practices adults can, and likely do, engage in to maintain strong and healthy relationships. Though statistical effects of these first encounter reminiscence sessions are modest, and findings are specific to a predominantly young-old sample, results reflect the compounding benefits of frequent engagement in co-reminiscence in everyday settings. Findings evidence the utility of reminiscence activities for predominantly young-old, healthy participants in satisfying and supportive relationships and suggest similar benefits for relationship maintenance across late life. They also support building and testing more structured co-reminiscence intervention activities in couples with chronic illness strains (e.g., cognitive impairment) or in difficult relationships.

Reminiscence About First Encounters: Boosts in Perceived Closeness and Support

Memories are shared to maintain and nurture intimate relationships (Alea & Bluck, 2007; Aydin & Buyukcan-Tetik, 2021). When asked to co-reminisce about first encounters in the current study, older adults’ reported relationship closeness and perceived support both increased relative to already high baseline levels. At a general level, positive memories from events experienced together with a close other may enhance situational feelings of closeness and support by reinforcing the partnership or “we” dynamic (Beike et al., 2017). Recalling relationship experiences together affirms feelings of being tightly connected in the moment, suggestive of healthy attachment (Dunlop et al., 2020). Co-reminiscing about specific memories from the early development of a relationship allows partners to tap into emotionally charged experiences (Guan & Wang, 2022), describing thoughts and feelings in the present that may not have been shared at the time, or fostering poignant meaning. This process ultimately appears to bolster healthy interdependence, providing modest, yet simple and effective ways for older individuals to reinforce their confidence in their closeness with their partner and in the relational support they receive from them (Feeney & Collins, 2015).

Postreminiscence Closeness and Support Relate to Well-Being

First encounter memories enhancing feelings of closeness and perceived support may reflect adaptive memory processes practiced in daily life. After years together, adjustment across multiple iterations of life-phase-specific challenges (i.e., maintaining finances, rearing children) can weather even strong marriages, particularly if couples have not developed productive communication practices (e.g., Zhaoyang et al., 2018). Highly positive events are commonly rehearsed to maintain strong links to emotions and thoughts experienced in the past and may serve to buffer stressful events experienced by the couple (Walker et al., 2003). Recalling specific relationship events is also more likely to foster marital satisfaction than more general memories of life periods (Guan & Wang, 2022). Reflecting on and sharing positive experiences may offer opportunities for joint mental time travel (Rasmussen & Bertsen, 2013), with more positive memories bolstering marital satisfaction despite stressors.

Results also indicate that a partner’s boosted perceived support following first encounter co-reminiscence relates to the actor’s lower reported depression, supporting a larger literature showing that greater perceived support is associated with better mental health (e.g., Choi & Ha, 2011). Sharing positive experiences with others is considered to be driven, in some cases, by prosocial intentions (e.g., Harris et al., 2014). In couples where perceived support is high following laboratory first encounter co-reminiscence, memory sharing may be a common way couples signal mutual support to each other in daily life. We speculate that, in relationships where social support is effectively communicated through co-reminiscence, partner rumination and reassurance seeking may be less frequent, and actor self-efficacy may be reinforced, contributing to lower risk of depressive symptoms for the actor (Laird et al., 2019; Starr et al., 2008).

Study Limitations, Strengths, and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice

This study was limited primarily by its correlational design. Casual relations between variables are theoretically supported but should be tested in experimental studies with comparison (e.g., nonreminiscing, privately reminiscing) groups. Directionality of effects cannot be confirmed; it is likely that effects of reminiscing and well-being operate in a circular fashion (Anik et al., 2009). The study sample reflects a relatively narrow range of types of older couples: most participants were White, highly educated, heterosexual, and fell into a young-old age bracket. Most participants also reported high marital satisfaction and few depressive symptoms. As such, results most accurately reflect outcomes for young-old couples in satisfied relationships who may co-reminisce regularly. Study aims should be tested in diverse samples, including in samples of nonheterosexual couples and predominantly old-old (e.g., above 75) individuals.

We further speculate that, for individuals with low marital satisfaction and/or more depressive symptoms, co-reminiscence may occur less frequently in everyday life, so experimental co-reminiscence activities may not show the same effects. Instead, outcomes of brief co-reminiscence activities might serve as indicators of broader relationship health, though this possibility has not yet been tested. Whether co-reminiscence for older adults with lower reported well-being might lead to well-being improvements has also not been investigated. It is possible that prompting first encounter memories from couples in less satisfied or insecure relationships could lead to negative affective experiences (Dunlop et al., 2020). Future research should examine patterns of co-reminiscing outcomes in other older couple contexts and include hypothesis-driven narrative analysis of their discussions. Future research should also assess compounding effects of co-reminiscence over time, in everyday settings (i.e., accounting for natural turn-taking patterns of different couples) to generalize or find boundary conditions to the present findings.

Strengths of the study include the novel investigation of co-reminiscence about first encounters in a laboratory setting, allowing for direct examination of psychosocial benefits of this type of memory sharing. This work offers foundational evidence of direct effects of co-reminiscence, illustrating functions and potentially compounding benefits of iterative memory sharing between partners in satisfying relationships. Findings also provide preliminary support of the possibility that co-reminiscence activities can be useful tools for identifying older adult couples at risk for poorer psychosocial well-being. In instances where co-reminiscence about positive relationship memories does not promote closeness or perceived support, couples may be emotionally disconnected from their relationship stories. In these cases, couples may benefit from preventative health dyadic interventions which either repair fractured relationship stories or train couples to use nonnarrative-based wellness strategies (e.g., couple mindfulness interventions; Monin et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Investigation of the benefits of reminiscence for older adults is an area of special interest, as reminiscence activities are considered accessible and cost-effective strategies to support the psychosocial well-being of both healthy and ill older adults (Lee et al., 2020; Tam et al., 2020). While intrapersonal relationship reminiscence is common and meaningful, particularly for individuals who have lost their partner to death (e.g., Browne-Yung et al., 2017; Waskowic et al., 2003), many reminiscence activities for older adults specifically rely on the productive co-reminiscence between dyad members (e.g., Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2013). As such, the present study considered co-reminiscence contexts and related factors as central to psychosocial well-being in late life. This study also contributes to broader efforts in narrative psychology to determine links between aging, narration of autobiographical memories, and psychosocial well-being (Adler et al., 2016), providing a novel perspective to investigation of co-reminiscence in older adult couples.

Supplementary Material

gnac053_suppl_Supplementary_Tables
Click here for additional data file. (22KB, docx)

Contributor Information

Emily L Mroz, Section of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Maya Shah, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Hanzhen Lan, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Ajua Duker, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Maria Sperduto, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Becca R Levy, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Joan K Monin, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Funding

Dr. E. L. Mroz is supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Institutional Training Grant (T32AG019134). The data were collected as part of Dr. Monin’s K award from the NIA (K01 AG042450-01).

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

References

  1. Adler, J. M., Lodi-Smith, J., Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I. (2016). The incremental validity of narrative identity in predicting well-being: A review of the field and recommendations for the future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 142–175. doi: 10.1177/1088868315585068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I’ll keep you in mind: Using memory to enhance intimacy in relationships. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1091–1111. doi: 10.1002/acp.1316 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alea, N., & Vick, S. (2010). The first sight of love: Relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction across adulthood. Memory, 18, 730–742. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2010.506443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper, 10-12. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1444831 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377. doi: 10.1177/0146167297234003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aydin, C., & Buyukcan-Tetik, A. (2021). Remembering the romantic past: Autobiographical memory functions and romantic relationship quality. PLoS One, 16, e0251004. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beike, D. R., Cole, H. E., & Merrick, C. R. (2017). Sharing specific “we” autobiographical memories in close relationships: The role of contact frequency. Memory, 25, 1425–1434. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1313990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Belove, L. (1980). First encounters of the close kind (FECK): The use of the story of the first interaction as an early recollection of a marriage. Individual Psychologist, 36, 191–208. [Google Scholar]
  10. Birren, J. E., & Cochran, K. N. (2001). Telling the stories of life through guided autobiography groups. Taylor & Francis US. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bohlmeijer, E., Smit, F., & Cuijpers, P. (2003). Effects of reminiscence and life review on late-life depression: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 1088–1094. doi: 10.1002/gps.1018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Browne-Yung, K., Walker, R. B., & Luszcz, M. A. (2017). An examination of resilience and coping in the oldest old using life narrative method. The. Gerontologist, 57, 282–291. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bühler, J. L., & Dunlop, W. L. (2019). The narrative identity approach and romantic relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13, e12447. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12447 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler, R. N. (2002). Age, death, and life review. In Doka K. J. (Ed.), Living with grief: Loss in later life (pp. 3–11). Hospice Foundation of America. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cappeliez, P., Guindon, M., & Robitaille, A. (2008). Functions of reminiscence and emotional regulation among older adults. Journal of Aging Studies, 22, 266–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2007.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.7.3.331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, J., Waite, L., & Lauderdale, D. (2015). Marriage, relationship quality, and sleep among U.S. older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 56, 356–377. doi: 10.1177/0022146515594631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Choi, N. G., & Ha, J. H. (2011). Relationship between spouse/partner support and depressive symptoms in older adults: Gender difference. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 307–317. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.513042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Choi, H., Yorgason, J., & Johnson, D. (2016). Marital quality and health in middle and later adulthood: Dyadic associations. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71, 154–164. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dunlop, W. L. (2017). The Narrative Identity Structure Model (NISM). Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37, 153–177. doi: 10.1177/0276236617733825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunlop, W. L., Bühler, J., Maghsoodi, A., Harake, N., Wilkinson, D., & McAdams, D. P. (2020). The stories couples live by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. doi: 10.1177/0265407520969900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunlop, W. L., Hanley, G. E., McCoy, T. P., & Harake, N. (2017). Sticking to the (romantic) script: An examination of love life scripts, stories, and self-reports of normality. Memory, 25, 1444–1454. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1316509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dunlop, W. L., Harake, N., Gray, J. S., Hanley, G. E., & McCoy, T. P. (2018). The rises and falls of romance: Considering redemption, contamination, and affective tone in the narrative construction of love lives. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. doi: 10.1177/1088868314544222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fiske, A., Wetherell, J. L., & Gatz, M. (2009). Depression in older adults. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 363–389. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gill, D. S., Christensen, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1999). Predicting marital satisfaction from behavior: Do all roads really lead to Rome? Personal Relationships, 6, 369–387. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00198.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Guan, L., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does sharing memories make us feel closer? The roles of memory type and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/00220221211072809 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris, C. B., Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2014). The functions of autobiographical memory: An integrative approach. Memory, 22, 559–581. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.806555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Henry, N. J. M., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., & Florsheim, P. (2007). Positive and negative characteristics of marital interaction and their association with marital satisfaction in middle-aged and older couples. Psychology and Aging, 22, 428–441. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Turanovic, J. J. (2017). Depression and infrequent participation in social activities among older adults: The moderating role of high-quality familial ties. Aging & Mental Health, 21, 379–388. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1099036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Spencer, B., Kwak, M., Scherrer, K., Allen, R. S., & Campbell, R. (2013). The couples life story approach: A dyadic intervention for dementia. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 56, 237–254. doi: 10.1080/01634372.2012.758214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jiang, Y., Terhorst, L., Donovan, H. S., Weimer, J. M., Choi, C. W., Schulz, R., Given, B., & Sherwood, P. R. (2013). Locke-Wallace Short Marital-Adjustment Test: Psychometric evaluation in caregivers for persons with primary malignant brain tumor. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 21, 502–515. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.21.3.502 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis H. T. & Judd C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Laird, K. T., Krause, B., Funes, C., & Lavretsky, H. (2019). Psychobiological factors of resilience and depression in late life. Translational Psychiatry, 9, 1–18. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0424-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, K. H., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, B. (2020). Person-centered care in persons living with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Gerontologist, 62(4), e253–e264. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnaa207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255. doi: 10.2307/348022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McAdams, D. P. (2008). The life story interview.
  39. Merriam, S. B. (1989). The structure of simple reminiscence. The Gerontologist, 29, 761–767. doi: 10.1093/geront/29.6.761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Monin, J. K., Manigault, A., Levy, B. R., Schulz, R., Duker, A., Clark, M. S., Van Ness, P. H., & Kershaw, T. (2019). Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychology, 38, 936–947. doi: 10.1037/hea0000777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Monin, J. K., Sperduto, C. M., Manigault, A. W., Dutton, A., Clark, M. S., & Jastreboff, A. M. (2020). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for older couples with metabolic syndrome: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Mindfulness, 11, 917–927. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01301-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mroz, E. L., Bluck, S., Sharma, S., & Liao, H. W. (2020). Loss in the life story: Remembering death and illness across adulthood. Psychological Reports, 123, 97–123. doi: 10.1177/0033294119854175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.79 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2013). On the directive function of episodic memories in people’s lives: A look at romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 164–179. doi: 10.1037/a0030384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2013). The reality of the past versus the ideality of the future: Emotional valence and functional differences between past and future mental time travel. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 187–200. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0260-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 762–775. doi: 10.1037/a0013866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tam, W., Poon, S. N., Mahendran, R., Kua, E. H., & Wu, X. V. (2020). The effectiveness of reminiscence-based intervention on improving psychological well-being in cognitively intact older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Thomsen, D. K., Pillemer, D. B., & Ivcevic, Z. (2011). Life story chapters, specific memories and the reminiscence bump. Memory, 1, 267–279. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2011.558513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Walker, W. R., Skowronski, J. J., & Thompson, C. P. (2003). Life is pleasant—And memory helps to keep it that way! Review of General Psychology, 7, 203–210. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Waskowic, T. D., & Chartier, B. M. (2003). Attachment and the experience of grief following the loss of a spouse. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 47, 77–91. doi: 10.2190/0cmc-gyp5-n3qh-weh4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Westerhof, G. J., Lamers, S. M., Postel, M. G., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2019). Online therapy for depressive symptoms: An evaluation of counselor-led and peer-supported life review therapy. The Gerontologist, 59, 135–146. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnx140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhaoyang, R., Martire, L. M., & Stanford, A. M. (2018). Disclosure and holding back: Communication, psychological adjustment, and marital satisfaction among couples coping with osteoarthritis. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 412–418. doi: 10.1037/fam0000390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

gnac053_suppl_Supplementary_Tables
Click here for additional data file. (22KB, docx)

Articles from The Gerontologist are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES