Together on the Path of Positive Aging. Wisdom and Marital Satisfaction in Polish Older Couples: The Mediation Analysis of Forgiveness

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction in older Polish couples, examining benevolence and resentment/avoidance as mediators. Successful aging involves maintaining emotional well-being and strong social bonds, yet research on marital satisfaction in adults aged 60+ remains limited. The cross-sectional sample comprised 194 couples aged 60–75 years (M_women = 64.26, SD = 4.75; M_men = 65.71, SD = 5.31), married on average 39 years. Participants completed the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale, the Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale, and measures of specific and global marital satisfaction. Spouses’ own wisdom positively predicted marital satisfaction, with greater benevolence and lower resentment/avoidance mediating this relationship. Higher wisdom was associated with more benevolence and less resentment, which in turn related to greater marital satisfaction. Partner effects indicated that wives were more responsive to husbands’ wisdom than vice versa.

Keywords

life course wisdom marital satisfaction forgiveness intimate relationships

Successful aging involves good health, having high cognitive and physical functions, as well as maintaining emotional well-being and social engagement (Annele et al., 2019; Kim & Park, 2016; Rowe & Kahn, 1998). Prior work (e.g., Ko et al., 2007; Novak et al., 2023) has documented that a satisfactory marital relationship is a prominent predictor of successful aging and contributes to its components.

Although marital satisfaction seems to be an exploited concept (Shafer et al., 2014), there is a major research blind spot when it comes to people aged 60 to 75 (Li et al., 2022). As the world’s population is getting older, transferring results from younger couples might not be sufficient (Henry et al., 2005). Late adulthood is a period of significant changes in life that demands a dedicated psychological approach to investigate older people’s marital satisfaction.

Developmental, relational, and aging theories suggest that long-time married couples get closer as they age (Burke et al., 2019), which is the result of transformations in their life domains. For instance, the theory of Gerotranscendence (Tornstam, 2005, 2011) posits that older people might experience a number of developmental psycho-social changes leading to increased life satisfaction and wisdom. These changes occur on three basic levels: cosmic, self, and social (Tornstam, 1989). They entail transformations in the perception of time and space and in the concept of self, expressed in a greater openness to spirituality in life, acceptance of both positive and negative aspects of the self, decreased egocentrism, and increased altruism. Relationships with others are re-evaluated and their quality becomes more important than earlier in life (Tornstam, 2005, 2011).

Relatedly, Carstensen’s Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (Carstensen, 1995) posits that one’s perceived time horizon is important for selecting goals, activities, and preferences. As people age and realize that their time is limited, they prioritize positive emotional experiences. They avoid negative states, maximize positive emotional rewards, seek emotional intimacy, and develop a positive relationship with their spouse (Carstensen et al., 1995, 2003; Carstensen & Mikels, 2005). According to the Dynamic Goal Theory of Marital Satisfaction (Li & Fung, 2011), older couples prioritize companionships goals. They treat their relationship as more important than other life goals, such as personal growth and instrumental goals.

Thus, although marital satisfaction is generally considered a key factor of adults’ happiness and health (Chapman & Guven, 2016; Proulx et al., 2007), it seems especially important for older people (Li et al., 2022; Margelisch et al., 2017; Novak et al., 2023). Novak et al. (2023) found that older couples who were satisfied with their relationships also tended to be satisfied with their health and to have less perceived stress and fewer health problems and depressive symptoms than couples who had less satisfying marital relationships. Higher marital satisfaction may buffer against poorer psychological and physical health in old age (McDonough & Allen, 2019), including depression and lower life satisfaction (Heine et al., 2019). Thus, the way to support older adults’ happiness and health is to improve their marital satisfaction (Carr et al., 2014; Li et al., 2022).

Marital satisfaction is usually defined as spouses’ global subjective evaluation about the quality of their marriage (Li & Fung, 2011). Usually, partners take some dimensions of their relationship under consideration when they rate their satisfaction. For example, they might assess marital intimacy, self-fulfillment, similarity, or disappointment (Plopa, 2007). Network analysis showed, however, that for older spouses, key elements of marital satisfaction were emotional expression, communication and understanding, and consistent views (Li et al., 2022). Similarly, Haynes et al. (1992) identified communication/companionship, sex/affection, and spouse’s health as the three main dimensions of marriage satisfaction in older couples.

Marital satisfaction in old age is predicted by many individual and dyadic characteristics, such as personality traits (Brudek et al., 2018; Sayehmiri et al., 2020), the quality of joint activities, conversations, and mutual marital support (Schmitt et al., 2007), couple similarity on personality and value domains (Luo et al., 2008; Shiota et al., 2007), and external circumstances, such as health problems (Korporaal et al., 2013) and intergenerational support (Polenick et al., 2017). Little is known, however, about intrapsychic predictors of marital satisfaction that might be related to aging well, such as wisdom and forgiveness (Ardelt, 1997; Kaleta & Mróz, 2018; Toussaint et al., 2001).

Wisdom

Wisdom, once the domain of philosophy, has been the subject of interest in psychology starting in the 1970s (Clayton, 1975). Since that time, many definitions and theories have emerged, ranging from rational knowledge and practical expertise in fundamental life matters to personality attributes and knowing how to live a good life (e.g., Alhosseini & Ferrari, 2020; Ardelt, 2003; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Case & Gosling, 2007; Chen & Wang, 2013; Ferrari & Kim, 2019; Glück & Bluck, 2013; Webster, 2003, 2007; Zhang et al., 2023). Although a comprehensive general definition of wisdom does not exist (Glück, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2020), scholars agree that wisdom includes two elements, identified as mind and virtue (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000), meta-cognitions and moral aspirations (Grossmann et al., 2020), or “wit and virtue” (Zhang et al., 2023).

Wisdom is considered an indicator of psycho-social maturity that manifests in wise behaviors to benefit the common good (Glück, 2024; Grossmann, 2017; Sternberg, 1998; Taylor et al., 2011; Webster & Heintz, 2023). According to the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Model (Ardelt, 2003; Thomas et al., 2017), wisdom is a personality quality that integrates cognition, reflection, and compassion. The cognitive dimension of wisdom refers to the desire to know a deeper truth and the ability to understand the intra- and interpersonal aspects of life, while simultaneously accepting the limitations of knowledge and the complexities of human nature. To reach such a deep comprehension of life and human nature requires the reflective wisdom dimension, which is defined as perceiving phenomena and events, including oneself, from different perspectives to transcend one’s subjectivity and projections and gain insight into the true nature of things. The compassionate dimension of wisdom emerges through a reduction in self-centeredness and greater tolerance and empathy obtained through the reflective wisdom dimension and manifests as love, sympathy, and compassion toward all beings.

The development of three-dimensional wisdom allows people to achieve not only a sense of individual fulfillment and satisfaction but also positive family relationships, especially in their later years (Ardelt, 1997, 2000, 2003; Zacher & Staudinger, 2018). The relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction in couples, however, has not been studied so far. Thus, the first aim of the current study was to explore the associations between three-dimensional wisdom and marital satisfaction among older couples. Moreover, we were interested in searching for the possible mechanism linking these two variables. Both theory and empirical research suggest a mediating role of forgiveness in the relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is crucial for prosocial behavior and maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships (Fincham, 2010; McCullough et al., 1997; Worthington, 2020) because people might unintentionally or intentionally hurt each other, especially in close relationships (Fincham & Beach, 2002). These transgressions pose a challenge for how to maintain and repair a connection after being wronged or treated unjustly (Fincham, 2000; Rusbult et al., 2005). Forgiveness is one of the most effective ways to cope with hurt without following the desire to take revenge or avoid the offender (Fincham & Beach, 2002; McCullough et al., 1997; Wade & Worthington, 2003; Worthington & Wade, 1999). It is a process where a victim overcomes negative thoughts, emotions, motivations, and actions (Fehr et al., 2010; McCullough et al., 1997; Wade & Worthington, 2003) and instead develops benevolent thoughts and emotions toward the transgressor (Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991; Exline et al., 2003; Gordon et al., 2009). Offering an offender forgiveness is especially important in close relationships to maintain mental health (Fincham et al., 2006). When partners forgive each other, they replace feelings of anger, resentment, anxiety, revenge, or avoidance with compassion, pity, love, and closeness (Enright et al., 1998).

Forgiveness has been linked to many positive outcomes in close relationships, including improvements in conflict tactics (Fincham et al., 2004, 2007; Paleari et al., 2009, 2010), constructive interpersonal problem-solving (Girgin Büyükbayraktar et al., 2025), trust (Paleari et al., 2009; Wieselquist, 2009), relationship effort (Braithwaite et al., 2011), marital support (Paleari et al., 2009), and closeness and commitment (Braithwaite et al., 2011; Tsang et al., 2006). As a result, forgiveness has been positively associated with marital satisfaction (Arya & Kaushik, 2015; Fincham et al., 2004, 2007; Kaleta & Jaśkiewicz, 2024; Olson et al., 2015). Moreover, forgiveness may be a mediator between personal attributes, such as personality traits (Brudek & Kaleta, 2023; Farsani, 2021), religiosity (Rose et al., 2018), or attachment styles (Farsani, 2021; Guzmán-González et al., 2020), and marital satisfaction.

Forgiveness itself is predicted by many individual and situational factors (Fehr et al., 2010; Kaleta & Mróz, 2021; Riek & Mania, 2012), usually tested in younger samples. Recent studies, however, found that wisdom predicted forgiveness in the general population (Taylor et al., 2011) and in older people (Brudek et al., 2023, 2024; Koshy et al., 2017) but not in emerging adults (Booker & Dunsmore, 2016), although the latter study employed a more cognitive-focused wisdom measure. Prior research showed that improvements in wisdom in late adulthood are related to increased forgiveness (Brudek et al., 2023). As wisdom involves a thorough understanding of life, perspective-taking, and compassion, it may help older people overcome negative interpersonal incidents in a prosocial and moral way through forgiveness (Dortaj et al., 2021; Wade & Worthington, 2003). Thus, the second goal of the present study was to test whether forgiveness mediates the association between wisdom and marital satisfaction in late adulthood.

The Present Study

No research to date has directly examined the mediating role of forgiveness in the relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction among older couples, leaving a notable gap in the existing empirical knowledge of these interactions. A strength of the present study is its simultaneous consideration of both spouses’ marital satisfaction. This approach is grounded in the principle of linked lives of the life course paradigm (e.g., Elder, 1994) and the assumption that marital satisfaction among couples is inherently interconnected. Hence, older adults’ wisdom was not only expected to enhance their own marital satisfaction but also the marital satisfaction of their spouse because it is likely to be easier and more pleasant to live with a spouse who is observant, self-reflective, even-tempered, and compassionate than one who is self-centered, short-tempered, and blames the marital partner for his or her own shortcomings.

Hypothesis 1

One’s wisdom is positively related to one’s own marital satisfaction (H1).

Hypothesis 2

One’s wisdom has a positive impact on the marital satisfaction of the spouse (H2).

Subsequently, a path model was analyzed to examine whether forgiveness mediates the associations between older Polish couples’ wisdom and their marital satisfaction (see Figure 1).

According to developmental theories (Carstensen, 1995; Carstensen & Mikels, 2005; Li & Fung, 2011; Tornstam, 2005), older adults tend to avoid negative states and prioritize positive emotional experiences, particularly in the context of companionship goals, which might foster altruism and emotional intimacy. Forgiveness is a way of dealing with negative incidents within marriage and cultivating a positive relationship with one’s spouse. Wiser individuals tend to forgive more (Choi & Landeros, 2011; Eghbali et al., 2022), which contributes to marital quality for both the giver and the receiver of forgiveness (Novak et al., 2018). This process may be especially important in later life, when emotional well-being and relationship harmony become increasingly central to one’s quality of life. The following hypotheses were tested based on developmental theories (Carstensen, 1995; Carstensen & Mikels, 2005; Li & Fung, 2011; Tornstam, 2005) and previous research.

Hypothesis 3

One’s wisdom is indirectly positively related to one’s own marital satisfaction through one’s greater benevolence and lower resentment/avoidance (H3).

Hypothesis 4

One’s wisdom is indirectly positively related to the marital satisfaction of the spouse through one’s own greater benevolence and lower resentment/avoidance (H4).

Hypothesis 5

Higher wisdom of one’s spouse is indirectly positively related to one’s own marital satisfaction through one’s greater benevolence and lower resentment/avoidance (H5).

Hypothesis 6

One’s wisdom is indirectly positively related to one’s own marital satisfaction through one’s spouse greater benevolence and lower resentment/avoidance (H6).

It might be easier to forgive a spouse with greater wisdom who is able to view a transgression from the other spouse’s perspective and likely apologizes sincerely for the transgression. Being forgiving (H3 and H5) and being forgiven (H4 and H6), in turn, are expected to have a positive effect on marital satisfaction.

Method

Procedure and Data Collection

The study received approval from the Ethics Committee ofthe Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. Data were collected primarily in the eastern, western, and southern regions of Poland between February 2024 and June 2024. The inclusion criteria specified that participants had to be 60 to 75 years old, currently married, able to complete the questionnaire independently, free from serious cognitive impairments, and willing to provide informed consent. A cross-sectional design with convenience sampling was adopted. Data were gathered by trained fourth- and fifth-year psychology students from the Institute of Psychology at The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. Participants were recruited from Senior Clubs, Universities of the Third Age, and religious groups. Some completed the questionnaires during group sessions, and others did so at home. In addition, snowball sampling was employed to include individuals not associated with any senior-focused organization. Overall, 469 surveys were distributed. Of these, 384 were deemed suitable for the analysis of marital couples. The remaining surveys were excluded due to excessive missing data.

Participants

The study was conducted on a group of 194 married couples aged 60 to 75 years (M_women = 64.26, SD_women = 4.75, M_men = 65.71, SD_men = 5.31). The average marital duration was M = 39.29 years (SD = 7.58), ranging from a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 55 years with a median of 40 years. Regarding place of residence, the largest proportion of the couples lived in large cities (29.9%, n = 58), followed by medium-sized cities (28.9%, n = 56), small towns (23.2%, n = 45), and rural areas (18.0%, n = 18). The majority of participants had a secondary education (41.8%, n = 81 of women and 37.6%, n = 73 of men) or higher education (33.5%, n = 65 of women and 29.4%, n = 57 of men), whereas those with vocational and primary education accounted for 12.9% (n = 25) and 11.9% (n = 23) among women and 21.1% (n = 41) and 11.9% (n = 23) among men, respectively. In the sample, 67.5% of women (n = 131) and 63.4% of men (n = 123) were retired. Subjective health assessment revealed that the majority of participants rated their health as good (59.8%, n = 116 of women and 48.5%, n = 94 of men) or moderate (28.9%, n = 56 of women and 33.0%, n = 64 of men), whereas a smaller proportion rated their health as poor (9.3%, n = 18 of women and 12.9%, n = 25 of men) or very poor (2.6%, n = 5 of men). Only 2.1% of women (n = 4) and 3.1% of men (n = 6) described their health as very good. In terms of family situation, 74.6% of married couples (n = 145) did not live with their children.

Measures

Wisdom was assessed using the Polish adaptation (Steuden et al., 2016) of Ardelt’s (2003) Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS). The instrument contains 39 statements divided into cognitive (14 items: e.g., “I am hesitant about making important decisions after thinking about them”), reflective (12 items: e.g., “Sometimes I get so charged up emotionally that I am unable to consider many ways of dealing with my problems”), and affective/compassionate (13 items: e.g., “Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems”) dimensions. Responses are given on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree), with higher scores indicating greater wisdom. Computing the average of the three mean scores of all subscales produces a comprehensive measure of wisdom. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the cognitive, reflective, and compassionate dimensions were .79, .74, and .64, respectively, for women and .74, .75, and .72, respectively, for men and .77 for women and .76 for men for the average of the three dimensions (.87 for women and .86 for men for the 39 items).

Forgiveness was measured using the Marital Offence-Specific Forgiveness Scale (MOFS; Paleari et al., 2009), which examines forgiveness for a specific transgression committed by a spouse. Participants are asked to recall a concrete marital offence and to evaluate their responses in terms of both negative motivations (e.g., resentment, desire for revenge, and avoidance) and positive motivations (e.g., benevolence and willingness to reconcile). Hence, the scale captures the multidimensional nature of forgiveness, assessing actual strategies of dealing with partner transgressions rather than a generalized dispositional tendency to forgive. The instrument comprises two interrelated subscales consisting of four items for benevolence (e.g., “I forgave her/him completely, thoroughly”) and six items for resentment/avoidance (e.g., “Since my wife/husband behaved that way, I get annoyed with her/him more easily” and “Since my wife/husband behaved that way, I have been less willing to talk to her/him”). Items are assessed on 5-point scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the present study, the Polish adaptation by Brudek and Steuden (2015) was employed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .69 and .75 for benevolence and .86 and .89 for resentment/avoidance for women and men, respectively.

In research on marital satisfaction among older spouses, existing psychological measures often fail to capture the unique dimensions pertinent to this group. While commonly used methods focus on early or middle adulthood, their application to long-term relationships may overlook factors specific to later stages of life. Consequently, marital satisfaction among older adults should be viewed as a multifaceted construct with at least two subcomponents: one reflecting universal (age-neutral) dimensions and the other addressing aspects distinctive to later life (Brudek, 2015). Therefore, the present study employed two instruments to assess both specific and non-specific dimensions of marital satisfaction.

The Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons (MSQFOP; Haynes et al., 1992) was applied to capture specific dimensions particularly relevant to the experiences of older couples. The original MSQFOP comprises 20 items to evaluate three specific dimensions of marital satisfaction: communication-companionship (e.g., “The frequency with which my spouse and I have pleasant conversations”), sex-affection (e.g., “The frequency of sexual or other physically intimate relations with my spouse”), and health (e.g., “My spouse’s emotional health”). Respondents rate each statement on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). The average of raw scores obtained from these subscales yields an overall specific marital satisfaction score. In the present research, the Polish adaptation of the MSQFOP translated by Brudek (2020) was employed. The reliability for the 20-item scale was.97 for women and .96 for men.

The Successful Marriage Questionnaire (KDM-2; Plopa, 2007) was used to measure non-specific marital satisfaction. The KDM-2 consists of 32 items designed to assess four specific dimensions of marital satisfaction: intimacy (8 items, e.g., “In our free time, we try to spend it together”), self-fulfillment (10 items, e.g., “As the years of our marriage pass, I notice positive changes in myself”), similarity (7 items, e.g., “We agree on the selection and hierarchy of our life goals and values”), and disappointment (7 items, e.g., “I have often thought about getting a divorce”). Respondents evaluate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Subscale scores are averaged to produce an overall marital satisfaction score, with reverse scoring applied to items from the disappointment subscale. In the present study, the internal consistency of the subscales ranged from α = .81 to α = .89, indicating good reliability. The overall 32-item marital satisfaction score demonstrated excellent reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .92 for women and .88 for men, ensuring the robustness of the instrument in capturing general marital satisfaction.

After transforming the 1-6 score of specific marital satisfaction into a 1-5 score, marital satisfaction was assessed as the average of specific marital satisfaction and non-specific marital satisfaction. The bivariate correlations between the two marital satisfaction scales were .79 (p < .001) for women and .67 (p < .001) for men.

Data Analysis Strategy

A sensitivity power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007) to determine the minimum effect size detectable with the available sample. Given the final sample size of 194 participants, an alpha level of .05, and a desired power of .95, the analysis indicated that the study was sufficiently powered to detect effects of at least f² = .08, which can be interpreted as a small-to-medium effect size. An additional power analysis employing MedPower software (Kenny, 2017) indicated that the power of individual paths for the final sample of n = 194 was high, ranging from nearly 1 to .98.

Preliminary statistical analyses were performed in SPSS version 30.0 to check for normality of individual variables, evaluate intervariable correlations, detect possible multicollinearity, identify outliers, and control for confounding variables. Multicollinearity was assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance values. Outliers were detected using Mahalanobis distance (p < .001) and Cook’s distance. PRELIS 9.30 was used to check for multivariate normality and LISREL 9.30 to analyze the theoretical model depicted in Figure 1.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was applied to assess the potential presence of common method bias, as all variables were measured using self-report questionnaires. For men, a single factor accounted for 25.89% of the total variance, while all 101 items were distributed across 25 distinct dimensions. For women, a single factor accounted for 21.72% of the total variance, while all 101 items were distributed across 27 distinct dimensions. Based on these findings, it was determined that common method bias was not a concern in this study. Next, the normality of the variable distributions was examined. Skewness values ranged from −1.01 to 0.88, while kurtosis values fell between −1.70 and 1.60, indicating that the distribution of variables did not deviate significantly from normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2018). Multivariate regression analyses for each of the six dependent variables in Figure 1 were performed to check for multicollinearity, autocorrelation, the presence of outliers, and confounding control variables. Control variables were only entered if they were significantly related to the dependent variable. The variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged from 1.003 to 2.73 and tolerance values varied between .37 and .997, indicating that multicollinearity did not pose a substantial issue. The Durbin-Watson statistic ranged from 1.94 to 2.20, demonstrating an absence of autocorrelation within the residuals. Furthermore, an examination of Mahalanobis distance and Cook’s distance provided no evidence of influential outliers.

Although the skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the individual variables followed a normal distribution, preliminary analyses with PRELIS 9.30 showed that the combined variables did not follow a multivariate normal distribution (χ² = 206.97, p < 0.001). Hence, after computing both the covariance matrix and the asymptotic covariance matrix in PRELIS 9.30, weighted least squares (WLS) estimation was used in LISREL 9.30 to obtain χ² statistics, standard errors, and t-values corrected for non-normality (Bollen, 1989). The WLS estimator is asymptotically sufficient even under the condition of non-normality.

In the path model, we initially included marital duration and husbands and wives’ age, education, health, and retirement status as control variables but used a stepwise procedure to remove non-significant paths to the dependent variables (p > .05), starting with the coefficient estimate that had the lowest t-value. Modification indices of deleted paths were consulted to check whether a previously deleted path needed to be re-introduced into the path model. This procedure revealed that wives’ health and husbands and wives’ retirement status were not significantly related to any of the dependent variables and, therefore, removed from further analysis.

Bivariate Correlation Analysis

Table 1 presents correlations among wisdom, forgiveness, marital satisfaction, and controls in older Polish couples. The findings reveal that husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction was strongly correlated, followed by moderate correlations between their level of wisdom, benevolence, and resentment/avoidance, illustrating the effect of linked lives. Both husbands’ and wives’ wisdom and benevolence were positively associated with husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction, underscoring their roles in fostering high-quality marital relationships. Conversely, husbands’ and wives’ resentment/avoidance exhibited negative correlations with marital satisfaction of both spouses, highlighting their detrimental impact on marital quality. These results underscore the pivotal role of wisdom and benevolence in enhancing marital satisfaction, whereas resentment/avoidance emerges as a significant obstacle to maintaining fulfilling marital relationships.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlation Analyses; Pearson’s r

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)	M	SD
(1) Wife’s marital satisfaction	-													3.87	0.63
(2) Husband’s marital satisfaction	.71***	-												3.99	0.51
(3) Wife’s 3D-wisdom	.40***	.25***	-											3.30	0.49
(4) Husband’s 3D-wisdom	.33***	.46***	.51***	-										3.25	0.47
(5) Wife’s benevolence	.52***	.37***	.16*	.18*	-									3.95	0.81
(6) Husband’s benevolence	.37***	.52***	.11	.32***	.30***	-								3.99	0.84
(7) Wife’s resentment/avoidance	−.65***	−.44***	−.42***	−.32***	−.61***	−.29***	-							2.46	0.96
(8) Husband’s resentment/avoidance	−.50***	−.60***	−.26***	−.50***	−.27***	−.61***	.47***	-						2.31	0.97
(9) Marriage duration	.03	.02	−.07	−.02	.09	.05	−.05	−.01	-					39.29	7.58
(10) Husband’s health	.22**	.21**	.34***	.20**	−.06	.05	−.11	−.14	−.18*	-				3.37	0.84
(11) Wife’s education	.01	.01	.35***	.21**	−.11	.06	.07	−.01	−.11	.24***	-			2.97	0.97
(12) Husband’s education	.14	.05	.36***	.31***	−.01	.10	−.09	−.09	−.08	.26***	.63***	-		2.85	0.98
(13) Wife’s age	.00	−.02	−.04	−.03	.15*	.05	−.02	.07	.75***	−.23**	−.05	−.01	-	64.26	4.75
(14) Husband’s age	−.01	−.05	−.00	−.03	.14*	.02	−.04	.09	.80***	−.18*	−.07	−.01	.90***	65.71	5.31

Note. n = 194; ***p < .001, **p < .01, ^*p < .05.

Among the control variables, husbands’ health was positively related to husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction and wisdom. Husbands’ and wives’ educational levels were positively correlated with husbands’ and wives’ wisdom, and husbands’ and wives’ ages were positively correlated with wives’ (but not husbands’) benevolence. It should also be noted that marriage duration was highly correlated with husbands’ and wives’ ages. In addition, husbands and wives tended to have similar education levels and ages.

Direct Effects Model

The direct effects model was analyzed first, without including control variables, to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. As depicted in Figure 2, wives’ and husbands’ wisdom was moderately positively related to their own marital satisfaction, confirming Hypothesis 1. However, only husbands’ wisdom was weakly positively correlated with wives’ marital satisfaction, partially supporting Hypothesis 2 for husbands’ wisdom, whereas husbands’ marital satisfaction was unaffected by their wife’s wisdom, rejecting Hypothesis 2 for wives’ wisdom. Wives’ and husbands’ wisdom explained 18% of the variance in wives’ marital satisfaction, and husbands’ wisdom explained 21% of the variance in husbands’ marital satisfaction.

Mediated Path Analysis Model

The result of the mediated path analysis model is depicted in Figure 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, the positive relations of wives’ and husbands’ own wisdom on their own marital satisfaction were partially mediated by their own benevolence and resentment/avoidance, two key dimensions of forgiveness. Wisdom was directly related to benevolence and inversely to resentment/avoidance and benevolence and resentment/avoidance, in turn, were directly and inversely, respectively, associated with marital satisfaction. The unstandardized/standardized indirect effect of wisdom on marital satisfaction was 0.17/.14 for wives and 0.27/.25 for husbands.

Hypothesis 4, however, was only partially supported. Only wives’ benevolence was significantly positively related to their husbands’ marital satisfaction, whereas only husbands’ resentment/avoidance was significantly negatively associated with wives’ marital satisfaction. The unstandardized/standardized indirect effect of wives’ wisdom on husbands’ marital satisfaction, mediated by wives’ benevolence was 0.03/.03. Conversely, the unstandardized/standardized indirect effect of husbands’ wisdom on wives’ marital satisfaction, mediated by husbands’ resentment/avoidance was 0.20/.15.

Hypothesis 5 was confirmed for wives but not husbands. Husbands’ wisdom was positively related to their wives’ benevolence and negatively to their wives’ resentment/avoidance and, in turn, wives’ benevolence was positively and resentment/avoidance inversely associated with wives’ marital satisfaction. The unstandardized/standardized indirect effect of husbands’ wisdom on wives’ marital satisfaction, mediated by wives’ benevolence and resentment/avoidance was 0.14/.11. By contrast, wives’ wisdom was unrelated to husbands’ benevolence and resentment/avoidance. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was supported only for husbands but not wives. Husbands’ wisdom was indirectly related to their own marital satisfaction mediated by their wives’ benevolence. This unstandardized/standardized indirect effect was 0.03/.03.

As Figure 3 illustrates and Table 2 shows, wives’ wisdom was only significantly indirectly related to their own marital satisfaction through their own benevolence and absence of resentment/avoidance (H3: unstandardized/standardized indirect effect = .17/.14, p < .001). The indirect effect of wives’ wisdom on husbands’ marital satisfaction mediated by wives’ benevolence was not statistically significant (H4: unstandardized/standardized indirect effect = .03/.03, p = .09). However, husbands’ wisdom was significantly indirectly related to their own marital satisfaction mediated by their own benevolence and absence of resentment/avoidance and also by their wives’ benevolence (H3 + H6: unstandardized/standardized indirect effect = .27/.25 + .03/.03 = .30/.28, p < .001). Moreover, husbands’ wisdom had a combined indirect effect on their wives’ marital satisfaction through husbands’ absence of resentment/avoidance and wives’ benevolence and absence of resentment/avoidance (H4 + H5: unstandardized/standardized indirect effect = .20/.15 + .14/.11 = .34/.26, p < .001).

Table 2.

Indirect and Total Effects of Wives’ and Husbands’ Wisdom, Benevolence, Resentment/Avoidance, and Control Variables on Wives’ and Husbands’ Marital Satisfaction

Dependent variables	Wife’s marital satisfaction				Husband’s marital satisfaction
Dependent variables	Indirect effects		Total effects		Indirect effects		Total effects
Independent variables	b	β	b	β	b	β	b	β
Wife’s 3D-wisdom	0.168	.14***	0.385	.31***	0.027	.03	0.027	.03
Husband’s 3D-wisdom	0.344	.26***	0.206	.16*	0.302	.28***	0.511	.47***
Control Variables
Marriage duration	0.005	.06*	0.005	.06*	0.005	.07*	0.005	.07*
Husband’s health	-	-	0.081	.12**	-	-	0.091	.16***
Wife’s education	−0.086	−.14***	−0.086	−.14***	−0.019	−.04*	−0.019	−.04*
Husband’s education	0.015	.02	0.015	.02	-	-	−0.050	−.10*
Wife’s age	0.006	.05**	0.006	.05**	0.002	.02*	0.002	.02*
Husband’s age	−0.008	−.07**	−0.008	−.07**	−0.008	−.08**	−0.008	−.08**

Notes: n = 194; *** t-value >3.29 (p < .001), ** t-value >2.58 (p < .01), * t-value >1.96 (p < .05). WLS estimation using LISREL 9.30; standard errors, t-values, and χ² statistics are corrected for non-normality. b = unstandardized effect, β = standardized effect.

The mediation model reduced the direct effect of wives’ wisdom on wives’ marital satisfaction by 41% and the direct effect of husbands’ wisdom on husbands’ marital satisfaction by 59%. It fully mediated the direct effect of husbands’ wisdom on wives’ marital satisfaction.

Among the control variables, husbands’ health was positively related to both wives’ (unstandardized/standardized effect = .08/.12, p < .01) and husbands’ (unstandardized/standardized effect = .09/.16, p < .001) marital satisfaction. If a husband’s health declines, his wife likely becomes the designated caregiver with a possible negative effect on the couple’s marital satisfaction. Husbands’ education was negatively associated with their own marital satisfaction (unstandardized/standardized effect = −.05/-.10, p < .05) but also with lower resentment/avoidance of wives (unstandardized/standardized effect = −.11/-11, p < .05). By contrast, wives’ education was positively related to their own resentment/avoidance (unstandardized/standardized effect = .28/.29, p < .001) and negatively to their own benevolence (unstandardized/standardized effect = −.18/-.22, p < .001), but their age was positively related to their benevolence (unstandardized/standardized effect = .02/.14, p < .01). Conversely, husbands’ age was related to greater resentment/avoidance (unstandardized/standardized effect = .04/.25, p < .001), whereas marriage duration was negatively associated with husbands’ resentment/avoidance (unstandardized/standardized effect = −.03/-.20, p < .01). Because age and marriage duration were highly correlated, the two effects largely neutralized each other, except for extreme cases. For example, the expected resentment/avoidance score of a 70-year-old husband who had been married for 50 years was 2.23, whereas a 60-year-old husband with 30 years of marriage had a predicted resentment/avoidance score of 2.29. However, the predicted resentment/avoidance score of the 60-year-old husband who had been married for only 3 years was 2.99.

As shown in Table 2, marriage duration was indirectly related to wives’ and husbands’ greater marital satisfaction mediated by husbands’ lower resentment/avoidance. The total effects of wives’ and husbands’ education on their own marital satisfaction were negative as was wives’ education on husbands’ marital satisfaction. The total effects of husbands’ age on the marital satisfaction of both wives and husbands were also negative, whereas the total effects of wives’ age on the marital satisfaction of wives and husbands were positive. Because wives’ and husbands’ ages were highly correlated, but husbands tended to be older than wives, the net effect of age on wives’ and husbands’ marital satisfaction was negative for most couples.

The variables in the path model explained 11% of the variation in wives’ benevolence, 24% of the variation in wives’ resentment/avoidance, 10% of the variation in husbands’ benevolence, 31% of the variation in husbands’ resentment/avoidance, 54% of the variation in wives’ marital satisfaction, and 51% of the variation in husbands’ marital satisfaction. The moderation model fit the data well with a non-significant weighted least squares χ²-value of 23.85 (32 df, p = .85), a relative fit index (RFI) of 0.94 that was close to 1, a comparative fit index (CFI) of 1, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0, indicating close approximate fit (Bollen, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

Discussion

The present study was aimed at exploring the relationships between wisdom, forgiveness, and marital satisfaction in older couples. The results revealed positive associations between all variables. The greater the wisdom the participants reported, the more benevolence and less resentment they demonstrated, and the higher marital satisfaction they showed. Thus, our research confirms a positive link between wisdom and marital satisfaction, theoretically justified but never tested before. It supports Ardelt’s (1997, 2000, 2003, 2016) predictions and findings about positive effects of wisdom on satisfaction with different areas of older people’s life, including current marriage. Our results demonstrated that wisdom was positively related to marital satisfaction in dimensions specific for older adults, namely, communication, companionship, sex-affection, and health (Haynes et al., 1992), as well as in non-specific (more universal) qualities like intimacy, self-fulfillment, similarity, and reduced disappointment (Plopa, 2007).

It appears that the integration of cognition, reflection, and compassion entails abilities that help wise individuals appreciate their spouses and their spousal relationship by appreciating the significance and deeper meaning of their interactions, accepting the positive and negative aspects of human nature, looking at phenomena from many different perspectives, overcoming subjectivity and projections, and growing in sympathetic and compassionate love (Ardelt, 1997, 2003). All of these allow people to derive greater satisfaction from marriage. Past studies have shown that wisdom is associated with less negative and more positive affect, more positive vs. negative words used in speech, greater hope and empathy, better social relationships, and greater life engagement, which contribute to marital satisfaction (e.g., Booker & Dunsmore, 2016; Etezadi & Pushkar, 2013; Otero et al., 2020; Piechota et al., 2022; Sepehrian-Azar et al., 2016). However, the analysis of the dyadic data indicated a positive significant partner effect only of husbands’ wisdom on their wives’ marital satisfaction. In contrast, husbands’ marital satisfaction appeared to be unaffected by their wives’ wisdom, which might be related to gender roles and expectations in intimate relationships (Ali et al., 2022; Koenig, 2018; Çetinkaya & Gençdoğan, 2014).

The present study also demonstrated the mediating role of forgiveness of spouse in the relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction among older couples. These results are consistent with studies showing a positive effect of wisdom on forgiveness (Brudek et al., 2023, 2024; Koshy et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2011) and forgiveness on marital satisfaction (e.g., Ghiurca & Vintilă, 2019; Kaleta & Jaśkiewicz, 2024; Mirzadeh & Fallahchai, 2012). Our findings extend prior research by showing the possible mechanism linking wisdom and marital satisfaction in older couples. In our model, wisdom is established as a disposition expressed in forgiveness of a specific marital event, which contributes to a happy marriage. Greater wisdom appears to enhance individuals’ inclination toward benevolent attitudes and to mitigate tendencies to harbor resentment or engage in avoidance, thereby improving marital interactions and increasing marital satisfaction. Collectively, these findings underscore that interpersonal virtues arising from wisdom are instrumental in nurturing spousal relationships by promoting forgiveness and reducing maladaptive behaviors. These effects were observed in both wives and husbands.

The role of forgiveness might be explained by the current understanding of the forgiveness process. Forgiveness involves both cognitive and emotional processing of the transgression experience. It requires finding a new perspective on the event, putting the incident in a broader perspective, give it meaning (Gordon & Baucom, 2003; Thompson et al., 2005), making a deliberate decision to treat the perpetrator as a valuable person, and replacing negative emotions with positive ones (Davis et al., 2015; Hook et al., 2012; Worthington et al., 2007). This transformation of feelings and thoughts is based on the motivation to establish a good relationship with the perpetrator and to reconcile with him or her. In the light of our results, wiser people might be more able and motivated to positively reframe the hurt caused by their spouse. Similarly, Eghbali et al. (2022) found that wiser people tended to respond in a more prosocial and less antisocial way after transgressions. Choi and Landeros (2011) showed that older people who were nominated as being wise attributed much importance to forgiveness, which they perceived as a way of coping with challenging life experiences.

Scholars emphasize that forgiveness in marriage, in contrast to forgiveness of strangers, requires not only the neutralization of the negative effects of the transgression but also a positive attitude toward one’s spouse (Fincham & Beach, 2002; Fincham et al., 2006; Gordon et al., 2009; Wade & Worthington, 2003). In the process of forgiveness, spouses overcome their resentment and desire for punishment or withdrawal from the relationship, provide opportunities for communication, explanations, and compensation (Worthington & Wade, 1999), evoke empathy (McCullough et al., 1997), and restore a positive image of their spouse and their marital relationship (Gordon et al., 2005). These positive qualities maintain marital satisfaction in terms of companionship, affection, intimacy, fulfillment, similarity, and reduced disappointment (Haynes et al., 1992; Kaleta & Jaśkiewicz, 2024; Plopa, 2007). This might be particular important in later life, as positive emotional experiences and relationship harmony become central components of the overall quality of life (Carstensen, 1995; Li & Fung, 2011; Tornstam, 2005).

Another explanation of the mediating role of forgiveness might be the concept of marriage maintenance that is inherently related to spousal satisfaction (Dindia, 2003; Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Hall, 2022; Kaleta & Jaśkiewicz, 2024; Kayabol & Sümer, 2020; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013). Wiser people might be more aware that every marriage needs maintenance strategies to establish relationship stability and they might be more motivated to stabilize their relationship, especially in response to negative events that are inevitable in married life (Fincham, 2000). Forgiveness is one of such maintenance strategies (Ogolsky et al., 2017). On average, older people are more willing to forgive their transgressors than those in early adulthood (see Cheng & Yim, 2008; Ghaemmaghami et al., 2011; Kaleta & Mróz, 2018; Steiner et al., 2011). As a result, the role of forgiveness appears to be a powerful mediator between wisdom and marital satisfaction in late adulthood.

Our study, however, revealed nuanced partner effects. Wives’ wisdom had a positive effect on their husbands’ marital satisfaction through increased wives’ benevolence, whereas husbands’ wisdom had a positive effect on their wives’ satisfaction through decreased husbands’ resentment/avoidance following a negative incident. Moreover, husbands’ wisdom was related to their wives’ forgiveness, which contributed to both husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction, although the same pattern was not observed for wives’ wisdom. Thus, wives tended to benefit more—both directly and indirectly—from the wisdom of their husbands.

This pattern may reflect traditional gender roles and expectations in intimate relationships (Ali et al., 2022; Koenig, 2018; Çetinkaya & Gençdoğan, 2014). Wisdom in elderly husbands is often associated with authority, security, emotional stability, sound judgment, and supportive behavior, all of which contribute positively to marital satisfaction (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Cobb et al., 2001). Wives might perceive wise husbands as more protective, understanding, and capable of resolving conflicts constructively, which might foster greater forgiveness and higher satisfaction within the marriage (Paleari et al., 2010; Ünal & Akgün, 2022). Conversely, husbands might not attribute the same significance to the wisdom of their wives when it comes to forgiveness or overall marital satisfaction. Instead, husbands’ satisfaction seems to depend more on their wives’ interpersonal skills (Faulkner et al., 2005), emotional expression (Johnson et al., 2005), and marital happiness (Carr et al., 2014) rather than their wives’ wisdom. Additionally, older men tend to exhibit lower emotional intelligence, which might reduce their sensitivity to their partner’s wisdom (Cabello et al., 2016). Emotional intelligence and wisdom were found to be positively associated, and both predicted life satisfaction (Zacher et al., 2013).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents the establishment of causal relationships between the examined variables. While the theoretical framework suggests that wisdom plays a key role in promoting forgiveness and marital satisfaction, it is also possible that a reciprocal or bidirectional relationship exists, where greater marital satisfaction or forgiveness enhances the development of wisdom over time. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore the temporal and causal dynamics of these constructs.

Second, the reliance on self-reported measures may introduce bias, as participants’ responses might be influenced by social desirability or subjective interpretations of the constructs. Future research should consider incorporating qualitative methods, behavioral observations, or other objective measures to validate and deepen the understanding of these relationships.

Third, the study was conducted within a specific cultural and demographic context, primarily involving older Polish adults, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or socioeconomic contexts. Replicating the study in more diverse populations, including those from different cultural backgrounds and marital traditions, would enhance the applicability of the results.

Fourth, although the sample was relatively diverse in terms of gender, place of residence (ranging from large cities to rural areas), and educational level, some groups may have been underrepresented. For example, most participants reported moderate to good health, which might not fully reflect the experiences of individuals with poor health. Additionally, all participants identified as Roman Catholic, which limits the generalizability of the findings to religiously diverse populations. Future research should aim to include more diverse samples to better represent demographic and religious variability.

Fifth, the study did not account for certain contextual factors, such as chronic pain or specific health challenges, which are known to affect relationship quality and psychological well-being. Including these factors in future studies could provide a more nuanced understanding of the interactions between wisdom, forgiveness, and marital satisfaction.

Finally, the study primarily focused on the mediating role of forgiveness in the relationship between wisdom and marital satisfaction but did not explore whether similar mechanisms might influence other positive outcomes, such as life satisfaction or overall well-being. Future research could broaden the scope by investigating whether forgiveness similarly mediates other aspects of the association between wisdom and healthy aging or positive relational outcomes.

Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to the literature on the role of wisdom in promoting forgiveness and enhancing marital satisfaction among older adults. They suggest that wisdom can serve as a key resource in improving relationship quality by fostering forgiveness and reducing maladaptive behaviors. These insights open new possibilities for developing interventions focused on enhancing wisdom and forgiveness to support marital satisfaction and overall well-being in late adulthood.

Project Information

This article was prepared as part of the research task entitled: “Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Resources in Late Adulthood: Pathways to Positive Aging.” The project focused on wisdom as a key resource supporting positive aging and the overall functioning of older adults. The project was led by Paweł Brudek from the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (Poland), with contributions from researchers affiliated with other institutions: Monika Ardelt from the University of Florida (United States) and Kinga Kaleta from the Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce (Poland).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Paweł Brudek

Monika Ardelt

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acitelli

L. K.

Antonucci

T. C.

(1994). Gender differences in the link between marital support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 688–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.688

Alhosseini

Ferrari

(2020). Effects of causal attribution and implicit mind-set on wisdom development. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 90(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415019836098

Ali

P. A.

McGarry

Maqsood

(2022). Spousal role expectations and marital conflict: Perspectives of men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9-10), NP7082–NP7108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520966667

Annele

Satu

K. J.

Timo

E. S.

(2019). Definitions of successful ageing: A brief review of a multidimensional concept. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 90(2), 359–363. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i2.8376

Ardelt

(1997). Wisdom and life satisfaction in old age. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/52B.1.P15

Ardelt

(2000). Antecedents and effects of wisdom in old age: A longitudinal perspective on aging well. Research on Aging, 22(4), 360–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027500224003

Ardelt

(2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25(3), 275–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027503025003004

Ardelt

(2016). Disentangling the relations between wisdom and different types of well-being in old age: Findings from a short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 1963–1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9680-2

Arya

Kaushik

(2015). Forgiveness and relationship quality: A dyadic perspective. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 6(1), 57–61.

10.

Baltes

P. B.

Staudinger

U. M.

(2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122

11.

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.

12.

Booker

J. A.

Dunsmore

J. C.

(2016). Profiles of wisdom among emerging adults: Associations with empathy, gratitude, and forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1081970

13.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Selby

E. A.

Fincham

F. D.

(2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024526

14.

Brudek

(2015). Podmiotowe korelaty satysfakcji z małżeństwa osób w okresie późnej dorosłości [marital satisfaction and its correlates in late adulthood] (unpublished doctoral dissertation). John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin.

15.

Brudek

Kaleta

(2023). Marital offence-specific forgiveness as mediator in the relationships between personality traits and marital satisfaction among older couples: Perspectives on lars Tornstam’s theory of gerotranscendence. Ageing and Society, 43(1), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000465

16.

Brudek

Płudowska

Cichy-Jasiocha

Sękowski

Steuden

(2024). Gerotranscendence and wisdom in Polish older adults. The longitudinal mediation analysis of forgiveness. Aging & Mental Health, 28(6), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2023.2285915

17.

Brudek

Steuden

(2015). Polska adaptacja skali przebaczenia małżeńskiego (MOFS) [(Polish adaptation of marital offence-specific forgiveness scale – mofs)]. Family Forum, 5, 161–179.

18.

Brudek

Steuden

Kaleta

(2023). Wisdom and wellbeing in Polish older adults: The mediating role of forgiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1163113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1163113

19.

Brudek

P. J.

(2020). Polish adaptation of marital satisfaction questionnaire for older persons (MSQFOP). Family Forum, 10, 277–297. https://doi.org/10.25167/FF/1861

20.

Brudek

P. J.

Steuden

Jasik

(2018). Personality traits as predictors of marital satisfaction among older couples. Psychoterapia, 185(2), 5–20.

21.

Burke

L. K.

Rauer

Sabey

A. K.

(2019). A developmental perspective on marital closeness and health in older adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(8), 2397–2415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518788696

22.

Cabello

Sorrel

M. A.

Fernández-Pinto

Extremera

Fernández-Berrocal

(2016). Age and gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: A cross-sectional study. Developmental Psychology, 52(9), 1486–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000191

23.

Carr

Freedman

V. A.

Cornman

J. C.

Schwarz

(2014). Happy marriage, happy life? Marital quality and subjective well‐being in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 930–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12133

24.

Carstensen

L. L.

(1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512261

25.

Carstensen

L. L.

Fung

H. H.

Charles

S. T.

(2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230

26.

Carstensen

L. L.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.1.140

27.

Carstensen

L. L.

Mikels

J. A.

(2005). At the intersection of emotion and cognition: Aging and the positivity effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00348.x

28.

Case

Gosling

(2007). Wisdom of the moment: Pre-modern perspectives on organizational action. Social Epistemology, 21(2), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701393426

29.

Çetinkaya

S. K.

Gençdoğan

(2014). The relationship between marital quality, attitudes towards gender roles and life satisfaction among the married individuals. Psychology, Society & Education, 6(2), 94–112.

30.

Chapman

Guven

(2016). Revisiting the relationship between marriage and wellbeing: Does marriage quality matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9607-3

31.

Chen

H. B.

Wang

F. Y.

(2013). Wisdom: Structure, category, measurement and relationships to related variables. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00108

32.

Cheng

S.-T.

Yim

Y.-K.

(2008). Age differences in forgiveness: The role of future time perspective. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.3.676

33.

Choi

N. G.

Landeros

(2011). Wisdom from life's challenges: Qualitative interviews with low-and moderate-income older adults who were nominated as being wise. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(6), 592–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.585438

34.

Clayton

(1975). Erikson’s theory of human development as it applies to the aged: Wisdom as contradictive cognition. Human Development, 18(1-2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271479

35.

Cobb

R. J.

Davila

Bradbury

T. N.

(2001). Attachment security and marital satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279006

36.

Davis

D. E.

Hook

J. N.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

DeBlaere

Rice

K. G.

Worthington

J. , E. L.

(2015). Making a decision to forgive. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000054

37.

Dindia

(2003). Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In Canary

D. J.

Dainton

(Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication (pp. 1–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606990-1

38.

Dindia

Baxter

L. A.

(1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042003

39.

Dortaj

Daneshpayeh

Ferrari

(2021). Explaining wisdom based on moral intelligence. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 4(14), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.22034/iepa.2021.142426

40.

Eghbali

Struthers

C. W.

Guilfoyle

J. R.

(2022). Social decision-making following interpersonal transgressions: Word to the wise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(4), 866–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000405

41.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786971

42.

Enright

R. D.

& an Development Study Group . (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In Kurtines

Gewirtz

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 123–152). Lawrence Erlbaum.

43.

Enright

R. D.

Freedman

Rique

(1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In Enright

R. D.

North

(Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin Press.

44.

Etezadi

Pushkar

(2013). Why are wise people happier? An explanatory model of wisdom and emotional well-being in older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 929–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9362-2

45.

Exline

J. J.

Worthington Jr

E. L.

Hill

McCullough

M. E.

(2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06

46.

Farsani

Z. K.

(2021). Mediating role of relationship attributions and marital forgiveness on the relationship between neuroticism, attachment styles and marital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Research, 20(79), 7341. https://doi.org/10.18502/qjcr.v20i79.7341

47.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

48.

Faulkner

R. A.

Davey

(2005). Gender-related predictors of change in marital satisfaction and marital conflict. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180590889211

49.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

Nag

(2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993

50.

Ferrari

Kim

(2019). Educating for wisdom. In Sternberg

R. J.

Glück

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of wisdom (pp. 347–371). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568272.017

51.

Fincham

F. D.

(2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.2000.tb00001.x

52.

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 347–365). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-018

53.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00016

54.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

Davila

(2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72

55.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

Davila

(2007). Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 542–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.542

56.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

Beach

S. R. H.

(2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.111l/j.l741-3729.2005

57.

Ghaemmaghami

Allemand

Martin

(2011). Forgiveness in younger, middle-aged and older adults: Age and gender matters. Journal of Adult Development, 18(4), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-011-9127-x

58.

Ghiurca

M. V.

Vintilă

(2019). The relationship between forgiveness and marital satisfaction within couples. Social Research Reports, 11(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.33788/srr11.1.2

59.

Girgin Büyükbayraktar

Ç.

Barbaros Yalçın

Yavuz Öztürk

İ.

Say

(2025). Exploring the relation: Does forgiveness enhance interpersonal problem solving? Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010035

60.

Glück

(2018). Measuring wisdom: Existing approaches, continuing challenges, and new developments. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(8), 1393–1403. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx140

61.

Glück

(2024). Wisdom and aging. Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101742

62.

Glück

Bluck

(2013). The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In Ferrari

Weststrate

N. M.

(Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom (pp. 75–97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7987-7_4

63.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

(2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180301115

64.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

(2005). Forgiveness in couples: Divorce, infidelity, and couples therapy. In Harris

A. H. S.

Thoresen

C. E.

WorthingtonJr

E. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 407–421). Brunner Routledge.

65.

Gordon

K. C.

Hughes

F. M.

Tomcik

N. D.

Dixon

L. J.

Litzinger

S. C.

(2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014354

66.

Grossmann

(2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616672066

67.

Grossmann

Weststrate

N. M.

Ardelt

Brienza

J. P.

Dong

Ferrari

Fourniere

A. M.

Hug

C. S.

Nusbaumh

H. C.

Vervaekei

(2020). The science of wisdom in a polarized world: Knowns and unknowns. Psychological Inquiry, 31(2), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750917

68.

Guzmán-González

Contreras

Casu

(2020). Romantic attachment, unforgiveness and relationship satisfaction in couples: A dyadic mediation analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(10-11), 2822–2842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520940399

69.

Hall

S. S.

(2022). The double ABCM model of marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12431

70.

Haynes

S. N.

Floyd

F. J.

Lemsky

Rogers

Winemiller

Heilman

Cardone

Murphy

(1992). The marital satisfaction questionnaire for older persons. Psychological Assessment, 4(4), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.4.473. https://spider.apa.org/ftdocs/pas/1992/december/pas44473.html

71.

Heine

Gong

C. H.

Browning

(2019). Dual sensory loss, mental health, and well-being of older adults living in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 92. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00092

72.

Henry

R. G.

Miller

R. B.

Giarrusso

(2005). Difficulties, disagreements, and disappointments in late-life marriages. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.2190/EF1G-PNXF-J1VQ-6M72

73.

Hook

J. N.

Worthington

E. L.

Utsey

S. O.

Davis

D. E.

Gartner

A. L.

Jennings

D. J.

Dueck

(2012). Does forgiveness require interpersonal interactions? Individual differences in conceptualization of forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.026

74.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

75.

Johnson

M. D.

Cohan

C. L.

Davila

Lawrence

Rogge

R. D.

Karney

B. R.

Sullivan

K. T.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.15

76.

Kaleta

Jaśkiewicz

(2024). Forgiveness in marriage: From incidents to marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 45(7), 1764–1788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231194294

77.

Kaleta

Mróz

(2018). Forgiveness and life satisfaction across different age groups in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.008

78.

Kaleta

Mróz

(2021). The effect of apology on emotional and decisional forgiveness: The role of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 168(1), 110310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110310

79.

Kayabol

N. B. A.

Sümer

Z. H.

(2020). How to maintain a marriage: Maintenance behaviors, equity, and appreciation in understanding marital satisfaction. Current Psychology, 41(9), 5781–5794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00905-y

80.

Kenny

D. A.

(2017). MedPower: An interactive tool for the estimation of power in tests of mediation [Computer software]. https://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

81.

Kim

S. H.

Park

(2017). A meta-analysis of the correlates of successful aging in older adults. Research on Aging, 39(5), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027516656040

82.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

83.

K. J.

Berg

C. A.

Butner

Uchino

B. N.

Smith

T. W.

(2007). Profiles of successful aging in middle-aged and older adult married couples. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.705

84.

Koenig

A. M.

(2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086

85.

Korporaal

Broese Van Groenou

M. I.

Tilburg

T. G. V.

(2013). Health problems and marital satisfaction among older couples. Journal of Aging and Health, 25(8), 1279–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264313501387

86.

Koshy

Verma

Patki

(2017). Effect of wisdom on forgiveness, gratitude and happiness among older adults. Indian Journal of Mental Health, 4(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.30877/IJMH.4.2.2017.171-179

87.

Ren

Wang

Jin

Yang

Wang

(2022). A network perspective on marital satisfaction among older couples. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16, 18344909221117257. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221117257

88.

Fung

H. H.

(2011). The dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction. Review of General Psychology, 15(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024694

89.

Luo

Chen

Yue

Zhang

Zhaoyang

(2008). Predicting marital satisfaction from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or Us? Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1231–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.2008.00520.x

90.

Margelisch

Schneewind

K. A.

Violette

Perrig-Chiello

(2017). Marital stability, satisfaction and well-being in old age: Variability and continuity in long-term continuously married older persons. Aging & Mental Health, 21(4), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1102197

91.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

92.

McDonough

I. M.

Allen

R. S.

(2019). Biological markers of aging and mental health: A seed and soil model of neurocognitive disorders. Aging & Mental Health, 23(7), 793–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2018.1531383

93.

Mirzadeh

Fallahchai

(2012). The relationship between forgiveness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine, 2(6), 278–282.

94.

Novak

J. R.

Smith

H. M.

Larson

J. H.

Crane

D. R.

(2018). Commitment, forgiveness, and relationship self‐regulation: An actor partner interdependence model of relationship virtues and relationship effort in couple relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(2), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12258

95.

Novak

J. R.

Wilson

S. J.

Ermer

A. E.

Harper

J. M.

(2023). Aging together: Dyadic profiles of older couples’ marital quality, psychological well-being, and physical health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(6), 1897–1919. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221135451

96.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Bowers

J. R.

(2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512463338

97.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Monk

J. K.

Rice

T. M.

Theisen

J. C.

Maniotes

C. R.

(2017). Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12205

98.

Olson

J. R.

Marshall

J. P.

Goddard

H. W.

Schramm

D. G.

(2015). Shared religious beliefs, prayer, and forgiveness as predictors of marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 64(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12129

99.

Otero

M. C.

Wells

J. L.

Chen

K.-H.

Brown

C. L.

Connelly

D. E.

Levenson

R. W.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2020). Behavioral indices of positivity resonance associated with long-term marital satisfaction. Emotion, 20(7), 1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000634

100.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in marriage: The marital offence-specific forgiveness scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016068

101.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in close relationships: Within and cross partner effects. Universitas Psychologica, 9(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.upsy9-1.fcrc

102.

Piechota

Ali

Tomlinson

J. M.

Monin

J. K.

(2022). Social participation and marital satisfaction in mid to late life marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211056289

103.

Plopa

(2007). Więzi w małżeństwie i rodzinie. Metody badan [Bonds in Marriage and Family. Research Methods]. Impuls.

104.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

105.

Polenick

C. A.

Zarit

S. H.

Birditt

K. S.

Bangerter

L. R.

Seidel

A. J.

Fingerman

K. L.

(2017). Intergenerational support and marital satisfaction: Implications of beliefs about helping aging parents. Journal of Marriage & Family, 79(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12334

106.

Proulx

C. M.

Helms

H. M.

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x

107.

Riek

B. M.

Mania

E. W.

(2012). The antecedents and consequences of inter personal forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01363.x

108.

Rose

Anderson

Miller

Marks

Hatch

Card

(2018). Longitudinal test of forgiveness and perceived forgiveness as mediators between religiosity and marital satisfaction in long-term marital relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 46(4), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1547667

109.

Rowe

J. W.

Kahn

R. L.

(1998). Successful aging. Pantheon Books.

110.

Rusbult

C. E.

Hannon

P. A.

Stocker

S. L.

Finkel

E. J.

(2005). Forgiveness and relational repair. In Worthington

E. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 209–230). Routledge.

111.

Sayehmiri

Kareem

K. I.

Abdi

Dalvand

Gheshlagh

R. G.

(2020). The relationship between personality traits and marital satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology, 8, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0383-z

112.

Schmitt

Kliegel

Shapiro

(2007). Marital interaction in middle and old age: A predictor of marital satisfaction? The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 65(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.65.4.a

113.

Sepehrian-Azar

Mohammadi

Badalpoor

Norozzadeh

(2016). The relationship between hope and happiness with marital satisfaction. Journal of Health and Care, 18(1), 37–44.

114.

Shafer

Jensen

T. M.

Larson

J. H.

(2014). Relationship effort, satisfaction, and stability: Differences across union type. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12007

115.

Shiota

M. N.

Levenson

R. W.

(2007). Birds of a feather don't always fly farthest: Similarity in big five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.666

116.

Steiner

Allemand

McCullough

M. E.

(2011). Age differences in forgivingness: The role of transgression frequency and intensity. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 670–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.004

117.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347

118.

Steuden

Brudek

Izdebski

(2016). A Polish adaptation of monika ardelt’s three-dimensional wisdom scale (3D-WS). Roczniki Psychologiczne, 19(4), 769–792. https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2016.19.4-4en

119.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

120.

Taylor

Bates

Webster

J. D.

(2011). Comparing the psychometric properties of two measures of wisdom: Predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being with the self-assessed Wisdom scale (SAWS) and the three-dimensional wisdom scale (3D-WS). Experimental Aging Research, 37(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073x.2011.554508

121.

Thomas

M. L.

Bangen

K. J.

Ardelt

Jeste

D. V.

(2017). Development of a 12-item abbreviated three-dimensional wisdom scale (3D-WS-12) item selection and psychometric properties. Assessment, 24(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115595714

122.

Thompson

L. Y.

Snyder

C. R.

Hoffman

Michael

S. T.

Rasmussen

H. N.

Billings

L. S.

Heinze

Neufeld

J. E.

Shorey

H. S.

Roberts

J. C.

Roberts

D. J.

(2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x

123.

Tornstam

(1989). Gero-transcendence: A reformulation of the disengagement theory. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 1, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03323876

124.

Tornstam

(2005). Gerotranscendence: A developmental theory of positive aging. Springer Publishing Company.

125.

Tornstam

(2011). Maturing into gerotranscendence. The Journal of TransPersonal Psychology, 43(2), 166–180.

126.

Toussaint

L. L.

Williams

D. R.

Musick

M. A.

Everson

S. A.

(2001). Forgiveness and health: Age differences in a US probability sample. Journal of Adult Development, 8(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011394629736

127.

Tsang

J.-A.

Mccullough

M. E.

Fincham

F. D.

(2006). The longitudinal association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(4), 448–472. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448

128.

Ünal

Ö.

Akgün

(2022). Conflict resolution styles as predictors of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction: An actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Studies, 28(3), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1766542

129.

Wade

N. G.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(3), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00261.x

130.

Webster

J. D.

(2003). An exploratory analysis of a self-assessed wisdom scale. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020782619051

131.

Webster

J. D.

(2007). Measuring the character strength of wisdom. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 65(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.65.2.d

132.

Webster

J. D.

Heintz

(2023). A sage and a guru walk into a bar: Wisdom and humor styles. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 8(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-023-00090-w

133.

Wieselquist

(2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347931

134.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Wade

N. G.

(1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(4), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1999.18.4.385

135.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Witvliet

C. V. O.

Pietrini

Miller

A. J.

(2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8

136.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2020). Understanding forgiveness of other people: Definitions, theories, and processes. In Worthington

E. L.

Wade

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2nd ed., pp. 11–21). Routledge.

137.

Zacher

McKenna

Rooney

(2013). Effects of self-reported wisdom on happiness: Not much more than emotional intelligence? Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(6), 1697–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9404-9

138.

Zacher

Staudinger

U. M.

(2018). Wisdom and well-being. In Diener

Oishi

Tay

(Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 604–617). Noba Scholar.

139.

Zhang

Shi

Wang

Ferrari

(2023). Wisdom: Meaning, structure, types, arguments, and future concerns. Current Psychology, 42(18), 15030–15051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02816-6