The present study aimed to identify dyadic personality profiles in late adulthood, in an attempt
to determine whether they account for differences in perceived life satisfaction and gender-role
ideology among couples. One of the salient findings is that in late adulthood, spouses share similar
personality profiles. As expected, over two-thirds of the personality profiles of couples who participated
in the study were similar (either homogeneous-adaptive or homogeneous-maladaptive),
whereas a minority were dissimilar (heterogeneous-complementary—adaptive husband/maladaptive
wife). As mentioned, the opposite heterogeneous-complementary profile (adaptive wife/
maladaptive husband) was not distinguished in this sample. This finding contradicts the claim that
in late adulthood women become stronger than their husbands in the course of the marital life
cycle, a phenomenon linked with the end of child rearing, and known as inversion of gender roles
The absence of a distinct adaptive wife/maladaptive husband profile may reflect
the husbands attempt to maintain a strong masculine image in late adulthood, despite the actual
change that occurs in the husbands personality and behavior during that life stage. Consistent
with this argument, it can be expected that the reports of both husbands and wives might be somewhat
distorted in order to maintain the traditional image of each spouse. Thus, even though the
wives were stronger than their husbands, they could have portrayed themselves as being weaker
(lower self-esteem, higher anxiety, and lower tolerance for ambiguity), whereas the husbands
could have portrayed themselves as being stronger than they actually are (i.e., higher self-esteem,
lower anxiety, and higher tolerance for ambiguity).
The differences in reported life satisfaction and gender-role ideology among spouses with different
profiles are also noteworthy. Apparently, when both spouses fit the homogeneous-adaptive
profile, wives and husbands reported high levels of life satisfaction. However, when both spouses
fit the homogeneous-maladaptive profile, their gender-role ideology is more traditional than that
of spouses in the other two profile groups. The positive attitudes toward life expressed by the
homogeneous-adaptive spouses may be attributed to the combination of personality traits found
in that profile group. In contrast, individuals with low self-esteem, high levels of anxiety, and low
tolerance for ambiguity were not as well equipped to cope with stress and obstacles in their lives.
As a result, their general perspectives on life are relatively negative. Furthermore, the participants
who showed higher self-esteem and tolerance for ambiguity could adapt better to the reality of
changing gender roles, where distinctions between men and women are becoming blurred (e.g.,
women entering masculine occupations and men participating in child care). By contrast, participants
in the homogeneous-maladaptive group showed a greater tendency to maintain traditional
gender-role ideology, because they needed to rely on known and familiar perspectives. Of particular
interest in the context examined is the heterogeneous-complementary profile, where husbands
are adaptive and their wives are maladaptive. Couples in this profile group are closer to the homogeneous-
maladaptive couples than they are to the homogeneous-adaptive couples with regard to
gender-role ideology and life satisfaction. Among heterogeneous-complementary couples, the
level of life satisfaction tends to be relatively low, and their gender-role ideology tends to be traditional.
Evidently, the adaptive personality of the husband in this profile is not enough to balance
his wifes maladaptive personality. Therefore, the overall profile of these couples is characterized
by less adaptive patterns (relatively low life satisfaction and traditional gender-role ideology).
In sum, the findings suggest that in late adulthood spouses are typically characterized by similar
personality profiles, whereas heterogeneous-complementary profiles are much less common. Even
when complementarity is maintained, it is more common to find adaptive husbands compensating
for maladaptive wives.
To conclude, some limitations of the present study and recommendations for future research
are noteworthy. One limitation relates to the sample, which included only couples who had participated
in pre-retirement workshops. To enhance the generalizibility of the findings, future studies
might include retirees who did not participate in workshops. Another limitation of the study
relates to the life satisfaction variable, which was evaluated only on the basis of one question. Future
studies on the topic might examine life satisfaction on the basis of a questionnaire with several
items. Finally, it would be worthwhile to examine the research questions among larger
samples in order to shed light on the other heterogeneous-complementary profile (adaptive
wife–maladaptive husband), which was not distinguished in this study. In this context, future
research can examine whether those couples are similar to the adaptive husband–maladaptive wife
profile in our study with regard to gender-role attitudes and life satisfaction.