Love

Higher romantic relationship satisfaction is associated with lower all-cause mortality and longer life expectancy, with effects ranging from ~20% lower mortality risk to as much as 7 extra years of life in some subgroups.

TL;DR

People who are more satisfied in their romantic relationships live longer on average than those in unhappy or highly strained relationships.
Long-term studies show ~19–21% lower all-cause mortality risk in highly satisfied marriages vs. very dissatisfied ones, and up to 7 years longer life expectancy in some older adults who value and enjoy intimacy.
The quality of the relationship (support, low conflict, emotional closeness) matters more than just being partnered.
Effects tend to be stronger in men and in people under 65, but appear across many populations.
In KamaLama, we convert this into about –3 to +5 years difference on your result, depending on your relationship satisfaction score, using conservative estimates.

1. Introduction

A growing body of research shows that the quality of romantic relationships—especially satisfaction in long-term partnerships or marriage—is an important predictor of both all-cause mortality and life expectancy.

Large cohort studies and longitudinal analyses consistently find that:

People in satisfying, supportive relationships have lower mortality risk and better health.
Those in dissatisfying, high-strain, or unstable relationships, or who lose a spouse and fail to adapt, have higher mortality risk and worse health outcomes.

These associations remain even after adjusting for classic risk factors such as smoking, physical activity, BMI, and socioeconomic status (Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Kou et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2021; Leung et al., 2022; Infurna et al., 2016; Beerepoot et al., 2022).

The magnitude of the effect is non-trivial:

In some cohorts, the mortality impact of poor relationship quality is similar in size to other major risk factors (e.g., physical inactivity or high stress).
In specific subgroups, differences of up to 7 years of remaining life expectancy have been reported, linked to aspects of relationship satisfaction and sexuality in later life (Beerepoot et al., 2022).

However, the association is not identical for everyone. Effects can vary:

By gender (often stronger in men).
By age (stronger in midlife and younger-old adults).
By culture and socioeconomic context, with weaker or absent effects in some low-income settings (Jaspert et al., 2024; Nazario-Acevedo et al., 2025).

2. Methods (Evidence Overview)

This summary is based on a structured search using Consensus (which aggregates Semantic Scholar, PubMed and other databases), focusing on:

“relationship satisfaction / marital quality / romantic relationship quality”
“all-cause mortality / life expectancy / longevity / cardiovascular events”
“life satisfaction, social relationships, gratitude, and health”

From an initial pool of 1,050 papers, 631 were screened, 290 were considered relevant, and the 20 most relevant were used as the core evidence base for this article, prioritising:

Longitudinal cohort studies
Studies with mortality or major cardiovascular endpoints
High-quality journals and large samples (hundreds to >600,000 participants)

Key studies include national cohorts, ageing studies, and pooled analyses from Asia, Europe, and North America (Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Leung et al., 2022; Kou et al., 2025; Beerepoot et al., 2022; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

3. Results

3.1 Study Attributes and Populations

Representative examples:

Long-term marriage cohort
- 374 older adults in continuously married relationships (Margelisch et al., 2017).
Israeli Ischemic Heart Disease Study
- 8,945 men, 32-year follow-up of marital satisfaction and mortality (Lev-Ari et al., 2021).
Cardiovascular cohort
- 153,000+ adults with life satisfaction and incident cardiovascular disease (Kou et al., 2025).
Asia Cohort Consortium
- Pooled data from 623,140 adults, assessing marital status and cause-specific mortality (Leung et al., 2022).
Additional studies link relationship quality to mental health, disability, and quality of life (Bookwala & Gaugler, 2018; Kuczynski et al., 2019; Sauerteig-Rolston & Ferraro, 2024).

Most are longitudinal (2–32 years of follow-up) and adjust for age, sex, baseline health, and lifestyle factors.

3.2 Main Findings: Relationship Satisfaction & Mortality

1) Marital dissatisfaction and mortality

In the 32-year Israeli cohort of ~9,000 men, those who were least satisfied with their marriages had:
- ~19–21% higher all-cause mortality vs. the most satisfied group (HR ≈ 1.21; 95% CI 1.04–1.41).
- Among men <50 years at baseline, mortality differences were even larger (~39% higher) (Lev-Ari et al., 2021).

2) Negative relationship quality and mortality

In older adults, negative relationship quality (e.g., frequent criticism, conflict) predicted a 24% higher odds of mortality (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06–1.45) (Bookwala & Gaugler, 2018).

3) Sexual enjoyment and life expectancy

In a Dutch ageing cohort, enjoying sexuality and rating it as important in later life were associated with up to 7 extra years of remaining life expectancy in men, compared with those who reported low importance/low enjoyment (Beerepoot et al., 2022).
A Japanese study also found that lack of sexual interest predicted higher all-cause mortality in men (Sakurada et al., 2022).

4) Marital status and mortality in Asia

In the Asia Cohort Consortium (623,140 adults), being unmarried (never married, divorced, widowed) was associated with higher total and cause-specific mortality, with effects:
- Particularly strong in men
- More pronounced in those <65 years (Leung et al., 2022).

Takeaway: both being partnered and feeling satisfied and supported in that partnership are linked to better survival; dissatisfaction and strain are associated with higher mortality risk.

3.3 Life Expectancy Impact in Years

Direct “years of life” estimates for relationship satisfaction alone are rare. However, several studies support meaningful differences:

Sexual enjoyment & intimacy in later life
- Up to 7 years difference in remaining life expectancy among older men who reported both importance and enjoyment of sexuality vs. those who did not (Beerepoot et al., 2022).
Broad social relationships & mortality
- A landmark meta-analysis of 148 studies (308,849 participants) found that strong social relationships were associated with a 50% increased likelihood of survival, an effect size comparable to smoking cessation and greater than many biomedical risk factors (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).
- When translated into life expectancy, such hazard ratios are often estimated to correspond to roughly 5–10 years of life difference across adulthood.
Life satisfaction & cardiovascular disease
- Low life satisfaction (a construct strongly influenced by relationship quality) was associated with up to 80% higher risk of cardiovascular disease (HR 1.84; 95% CI 1.63–2.07) in a large cohort (Kou et al., 2025).

Given overlaps between romantic satisfaction, global life satisfaction, and social connectedness, a conservative interpretation is that moving from very poor to very good romantic relationship satisfaction likely sits in the range of:

~3–7 years of life expectancy difference for some individuals,
With average population-level effects somewhat smaller but still meaningful.

3.4 Patterns, Moderators, and Mechanisms

Patterns of relationship quality

Stable quality: In later life, marital quality tends to be fairly stable, with most couples remaining in their existing satisfaction band (Bulanda et al., 2020).
Patterns of quality: Individuals cluster into high-quality, indifferent, ambivalent (both support and strain), or adverse profiles. Ambivalent and adverse profiles are associated with earlier disability and worse physical functioning, especially in men (Sauerteig-Rolston & Ferraro, 2024).

Moderators

Gender: Effects of relationship satisfaction on mortality and disability are often stronger in men (Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Leung et al., 2022).
Age: Impacts are particularly marked in midlife and younger-old adults (<65).
Culture & income: Some studies in lower-income rural contexts (e.g., rural Burkina Faso) find weaker or non-significant associations, suggesting that economic and structural factors may overshadow relationship effects (Jaspert et al., 2024; Nazario-Acevedo et al., 2025).

Potential mechanisms

Biological: Lower stress reactivity (cortisol, blood pressure), better sleep, better immune function.
Behavioural: Healthier behaviours (diet, physical activity, medication adherence), reduced risky behaviours.
Psychosocial: Reduced loneliness, higher emotional support, more resilience, and better coping with life events.

Harvard-related work underscores that gratitude, affection, and low conflict within relationships are strongly linked to higher life satisfaction, which in turn predicts better health and reduced mortality risk (Richards et al., 2023; Kim, 2022).

4. Claims & Evidence Summary

Claim	Evidence strength*	Rationale	Key papers
Higher romantic relationship satisfaction reduces all-cause mortality	Strong (9/10)	Multiple large, long-term cohorts; robust after adjustment for classic risk factors	Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Leung et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2021
Relationship quality, not just status, predicts longevity	Strong (8/10)	Quality indices (support, conflict) predict outcomes above and beyond “married vs. not married”	Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Bookwala & Gaugler, 2018; Liu & Waite, 2014; Hanus et al., 2022
Negative relationship quality (criticism, strain) increases mortality	Moderate (7/10)	Observed in older adults with significant OR/HR values, though fewer total studies	Bookwala & Gaugler, 2018; Infurna et al., 2016
Enjoyment/importance of sexuality linked to years of life gained	Moderate (6/10)	One major cohort with up to 7-year differences; supported by other work on sexual interest and mortality	Beerepoot et al., 2022; Sakurada et al., 2022
Effects stronger in men and in younger cohorts	Moderate (5/10)	Subgroup analyses show larger risk differences in men and in <65 age group	Lev-Ari et al., 2021; Leung et al., 2022
Association weaker/absent in some low-income settings	Weak–Moderate (3–4/10)	Several cross-sectional/early longitudinal studies show attenuated or null effects	Jaspert et al., 2024; Nazario-Acevedo et al., 2025

*Evidence strength is a qualitative rating used within KamaLama for user-facing explanations, not a formal GRADE assessment.

5. How KamaLama Converts This Into “Years”

5.1 Factor definition

In KamaLama, “Relationship satisfaction” captures how satisfied you feel overall with your current romantic relationship (or most recent long-term partnership), typically on a 1–5 scale:

1 = Very dissatisfied
2 = Rather dissatisfied
3 = Neutral / mixed
4 = Satisfied
5 = Very satisfied

For people who are not currently in a relationship, a separate factor (“Relationship status” / broader social connections) captures the mortality impact of being unpartnered vs. partnered.

5.2 Mapping satisfaction to life expectancy years

Based on the evidence above and to stay conservative, KamaLama uses a compressed range of years for this factor:

KamaLama answer (example wording)	Approx. level	Impact on life expectancy*
1 – Very unhappy / frequent conflict	Very low satisfaction	–3 years
2 – More unhappy than happy	Low satisfaction	–1 year
3 – Mixed / neutral	Neutral baseline	0 years
4 – Mostly happy, minor issues	High satisfaction	+3 years
5 – Very satisfied, supportive relationship	Very high satisfaction	+5 years

*These years are relative to a neutral baseline and part of a combined model with other factors (physical activity, sleep, BMI, etc.). They are not guarantees or individual predictions.

5.3 Why these numbers are conservative

Individual studies sometimes imply ~5–7 years difference between extreme groups.
Strong social relationships (not only romantic) have been linked to up to ~7–10 years of life difference in some modelling exercises.
To avoid double-counting overlapping constructs (life satisfaction, social activity, stress, happiness), KamaLama assigns a subset of this effect specifically to romantic relationship satisfaction, while other parts are captured under social activity, stress, and happiness factors.

6. How to Improve Romantic Relationship Satisfaction (Health-Relevant Ways)

This is not therapy and cannot address complex or unsafe situations. But research suggests several directions that can improve relationship quality and, indirectly, health:

Reduce chronic conflict & criticism
- Frequent, unresolved conflict and criticism appear especially harmful in later life.
- Skills-based couple therapies (communication training, conflict resolution) can reduce strain and improve satisfaction.
Increase affection and positive interactions
- Simple behaviours—expressing appreciation, physical affection, shared activities—are strongly linked to higher satisfaction and life satisfaction (Richards et al., 2023).
Work on shared goals and efficacy
- Feeling like you can handle problems together (“shared relationship efficacy”) is associated with higher life satisfaction and better daily mood (Asano et al., 2016).
Strengthen broader social support
- Romantic relationships are part of a wider social network. Having friends, family, and community reduces the load on a single relationship and supports both partners (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).
Address mental health, stress, and health behaviours
- Depression, chronic stress, substance use, and poor sleep can all damage relationship quality and health simultaneously. Treating these can improve both.
Prioritise safety
- In relationships involving violence, coercion, or severe emotional abuse, staying together is not protective and may be dangerous. In such cases, the priority is safety and professional support, not “keeping the relationship”.

For KamaLama users, the practical steps are:

Notice your current score and whether it’s improving or declining.
Combine insights with other factors (e.g., stress, happiness, social activity).
Discuss concerns or major changes with a licensed mental health professional or couples therapist, especially if there is ongoing distress.

7. Limitations, Gaps, and What We Still Don’t Know

7.1 Key limitations

Observational evidence
- Most studies are observational; they can’t fully prove causality. People in satisfying relationships may differ in unmeasured ways (e.g., personality, early-life health).
Measurement differences
- Relationship satisfaction is measured differently across studies (single items vs. multi-item scales), which complicates direct comparison.
Cultural variance
- Much of the detailed quality-of-relationship research comes from high-income Western countries. Evidence from low-income or more collectivist cultures is still limited and sometimes inconsistent.
Few direct “years of life” estimates
- Only a handful of studies (e.g., Beerepoot et al., 2022) provide explicit life expectancy differences; most report hazard ratios.

7.2 Open research questions

Mechanisms
- Which mechanisms (stress biology, behaviours, sleep, health care use) explain most of the mortality benefit?
Interventions
- Do relationship-focused interventions (e.g., couple therapy, communication training) lead to measurable improvements in hard endpoints like cardiovascular events or mortality?
Life course and diversity
- How do effects differ by sexual orientation, non-traditional relationships, cohabitation without marriage, and across different cultures and income levels?
Romantic vs. broader social ties
- How much of the benefit comes specifically from romantic partners vs. the wider network of friends, family, and community?

KamaLama will continue to monitor emerging evidence and adjust the factor’s weight and year ranges as stronger data become available.

8. Takeaways for KamaLama Users

Romantic relationship satisfaction is not a soft, “nice-to-have” factor—it is a meaningful predictor of longevity, on the same order of magnitude as some traditional risk factors.
The quality of your relationship matters more than simply having a partner.
Improving relationship quality and broader social connections can be a powerful health investment, alongside physical activity, sleep, and blood pressure.
Our numbers are estimates based on population data, not a personal destiny. They are designed to help you prioritise, not to predict exactly how long you will live.

This article is for information and education only. It is not a substitute for medical, psychological, or relationship-counselling advice. If you are experiencing significant relationship distress, abuse, or mental health symptoms, please seek help from qualified professionals in your area.

References

(All links are external scientific or academic sources; they are not affiliated with KamaLama.)

Akers, A. Y., & Harding, J. (2021). The timing of obesity matters: Associations between current versus chronic obesity and romantic relationship satisfaction among young adult women. Women’s Health Issues. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2021.05.001
Asano, R., Ito, K., & Yoshida, T. (2016). Shared relationship efficacy of dyad can increase life satisfaction in close relationships: Multilevel study. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159822. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159822
Barr, A. B., Culatta, E., & Simons, R. L. (2013). Romantic relationships and health among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513486652
Beerepoot, S., Luesken, S., Huisman, M., & Deeg, D. (2022). Enjoyment of sexuality and longevity in late midlife and older adults: The Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 41(7), 1615–1624. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648221078852
Bookwala, J., & Gaugler, T. (2018). Negative relationship quality predicts mortality in older adults. Innovation in Aging, 2(suppl_1). https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy023.1034
Bulanda, J. R., Yamashita, T., & Brown, J. S. (2020). Dyadic patterns of marital quality during later life. Innovation in Aging, 4(Suppl_1), 344. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1106
Hanus, S., Simons, L. G., Lei, M., Cobb, R. J., & Simons, R. L. (2022). Romantic relationship status, quality, and depressive symptoms among middle-aged and older Black women. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbac016
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Infurna, F. J., Wiest, M., Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Schupp, J., Wagner, G. G., & Heckhausen, J. (2016). Changes in life satisfaction when losing one’s spouse: Individual differences in anticipation, reaction, adaptation and longevity in the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Ageing & Society, 37(5), 899–934. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15001543
Jaspert, F., Harling, G., Sié, A., Bountogo, M., Bärnighausen, T., Ditzen, B., & Fischer, M. (2024). Association of relationship satisfaction with blood pressure: A cross-sectional study of older adults in rural Burkina Faso. BMJ Open, 14(7), e089374. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089374
Kim, E. S., Delaney, S. W., Tay, L., Chen, Y., Diener, E., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2021). Life satisfaction and subsequent physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health in older adults. The Milbank Quarterly, 99(1), 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12497
Kim, M. (2022). The effect of subjective and objective relationships on the life satisfaction and health of older adults. Innovation in Aging, 6(Suppl_1), 724. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac059.2642
Kou, M., Li, X., Heianza, Y., Wang, X., Manson, J. E., & Qi, L. (2025). Life satisfaction as compared with traditional risk factors in relation to incident cardiovascular diseases. European Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-025-01225-w
Kuczynski, A., Kanter, J. W., & Robinaugh, D. J. (2019). Differential associations between interpersonal variables and quality-of-life in a sample of college students. Quality of Life Research, 29(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02298-3
Lev-Ari, S., Gepner, Y., & Goldbourt, U. (2021). Dissatisfaction with married life in men is related to increased stroke and all-cause mortality. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(8), 1729. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081729
Leung, C. W., Huang, H., Abe, S. K., et al. (2022). Association of marital status with total and cause-specific mortality in Asia. JAMA Network Open, 5(5), e2214181. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.14181
Liu, H., & Waite, L. (2014). Bad marriage, broken heart? Age and gender differences in the link between marital quality and cardiovascular risks among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146514556893
Margelisch, K., Schneewind, K. A., Violette, J., & Perrig-Chiello, P. (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
Nazario-Acevedo, J., Yamashita, T., Bulanda, J. R., & Brown, J. S. (2025). Correlates of positive and negative marital quality among older Hispanic adults in the United States. Journal of Applied Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648251324999
Pieh, C., O’Rourke, T., Budimir, S., & Probst, T. (2020). Relationship quality and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown. PLoS ONE, 15(9), e0238906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238906
Richards, N., Zhou, Z. E., & Fingerman, K. L. (2023). Gratitude, relationship qualities, and life satisfaction in late life. Innovation in Aging, 7(Suppl_1), 673. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad104.2189
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2002). Family relationships, social support, and subjective life expectancy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090238
Sakurada, K., Konta, T., Murakami, N., et al. (2022). Association between lack of sexual interest and all-cause mortality in a Japanese general population: The Yamagata prospective observational study. PLoS ONE, 17(11), e0277967. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277967
Sauerteig-Rolston, M., & Ferraro, K. F. (2024). Relationship quality patterns and disability in later life. Innovation in Aging, 8(Suppl_1), 469. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.1528
Weber, E., & Hülür, G. (2020). Co-development of couples’ life satisfaction in transition to retirement: A longitudinal dyadic perspective. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(10), 2177–2187. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa067