Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite the well-established association between relationship status and well-being, the unique factors associated with well-being among single individuals remain unclear. To fill this gap in the literature, this study adopted a single-center perspective and a network approach to explore and identify the sociodemographic and intrapersonal determinants of well-being (emotional and psychological well-being) and ill-being (anxiety and depression) among single individuals. Data were collected from two samples of Polish single individuals for Study 1 (N = 650; age 18–56; 56.50% women and 43.50% men) and Study 2 (N = 1406; age 18–92; 61.90% women and 38.10% men). The network analysis revealed that the overall network structure in the two samples was highly stable and similar, and the most influential factor was satisfaction with singlehood. These findings emphasize the need for a focus on satisfaction with singlehood beyond the general assessment of single individuals’ well-being and ill-being.

Keywords

Mental health network analysis satisfaction singlehood well-being

Introduction

In recent years, the increasing prevalence of single people in many countries has prompted increased scientific efforts to understand the internal variability of single people and their psychosocial functioning (Girme et al., 2023; Hoan & MacDonald, 2024a; Kislev, 2024). This new line of research represents a critical change in research on single individuals compared with earlier research that examined the determinants, correlates and life outcomes of adult singlehood by comparing single and coupled individuals (DePaulo & Morris, 2005; Girme et al., 2023; Park et al., 2024).

Previous studies that have employed between-group-status comparisons (Park et al., 2024) have revealed generally lower rates of mental illness and higher levels of happiness among married people than among unmarried, divorced, separated or widowed individuals (e.g., Diener et al., 1999; Soons & Liefbroer, 2008). Single individuals have been found to report higher levels of depression, anxiety, mood disorders, and adjustment problems and a higher rate of alcohol-related problems than married individuals (e.g., Braithwaite et al., 2010). Compared with coupled people, single people also experience lower levels of life satisfaction and emotional well-being (Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015a, 2015b) as well as lower levels of satisfaction with their love life, general life satisfaction, and flourishing (Watkins et al., 2024).

This brief overview of previous research reveals that between-group-status comparisons provide knowledge of the average differences in diverse well-being outcomes between samples of single and coupled individuals (Park et al., 2024). While these studies identified general factors related to well-being as a function of relationship status (i.e., having or not having a partner), they did not discuss specific factors that are relevant only to single individuals. There is therefore a lack of studies that focus on single people and factors related to their well-being. An important question remains unanswered: “Who is well suited to singlehood?” (Girme et al., 2023, p. 1100). In the present investigation, we sought to extend past research by comprehensively examining diverse factors and their interrelationships with respect to well-being and ill-being among single adults. Specifically, we aimed to determine the role of sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and living arrangements), which are essential to explain the phenomenon of well-being (e.g., Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b). Furthermore, we aimed to identify intrapersonal factors that are directly related to singlehood (i.e., the duration of singlehood, desire for a romantic partner, voluntary singlehood, relationship congruency, satisfaction with singlehood, fear of being single, and romantic loneliness). We assessed well-being across three aspects (see Xia & Hudac, 2023): (a) positive experience (via emotional well-being), (b) positive functioning (via psychological well-being), and (c) negative experience (via anxiety and depression). To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the associations between sociodemographic and intrapersonal factors as well as the positive and negative indicators of well-being among single adults via a network approach.

Factors related to well-being among single individuals

In their seminal paper, Girme and colleagues (2023) proposed categorizing factors related to single people’s well-being into three major groups: (a) intrapersonal factors, (b) interpersonal experiences, and (c) societal influences.

With respect to intrapersonal factors, Girme and colleagues (2023) identified several individual characteristics, such as fear of being single, the (in)voluntariness of single status, the romantic desire to have a partner, and age, as uniquely related to the well-being of single individuals. Fear of being single is defined as “concern, anxiety, or distress regarding the current or prospective experience of being without a romantic partner” (Spielmann et al., 2013, p. 1049). It is related to greater levels of depression and loneliness (Spielmann et al., 2013) and lower emotional and psychological well-being and life satisfaction (Adamczyk, 2017a) as well as lower satisfaction with singlehood (Adamczyk et al., 2021).

The second factor involves voluntary versus involuntary singlehood (Girme et al., 2023). This aspect reflects the degree to which singlehood is perceived as chosen or a result of external circumstances (Adamczyk, 2017b; Fitzpatrick, 2023; Hostetler, 2009; Reynolds et al., 2007; Stein, 1978). The perception of one’s singlehood as occurring by choice or by chance may be associated with different outcomes. For example, individuals who perceive their single status as chosen and have a weak desire for a partner may not experience a sense of failure in the domain of romantic relationships and may feel more agentic than individuals who strongly desire a partner (Reynolds et al., 2007). Furthermore, young individuals who experience voluntary singlehood reported less romantic loneliness than involuntarily single individuals did, although there was no difference between these groups in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being and somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction, severe depression, and overall mental illness (Adamczyk, 2017b). Moreover, even voluntary single individuals may desire a partner (Hostetler, 2009) and feel open to a relationship in the future if they encounter a potential partner (Girme et al., 2023).

The third intrapersonal factor described by Girme and colleagues (2023) involves the romantic desire to have a partner, which also relates to the construct of voluntary versus involuntary singlehood discussed above. Longitudinal data reveal that a lower desire to have a partner is related to greater life satisfaction (except for divorced men; Kislev, 2021). MacDonald & Park (2022) revealed that the desire for a partner was negatively associated with satisfaction with singlehood. Furthermore, single adults who reported greater interest in being in a relationship experienced higher levels of depressive symptoms than those who were not interested or were slightly interested in being romantically engaged and those who were in a relationship (Beckmeyer & Cromwell, 2019). Moreover, coupled adults experienced lower levels of loneliness than their single peers who were highly interested in being in a relationship and their single peers who were not/were slightly interested in a relationship (Beckmeyer & Cromwell, 2019). Finally, a recent study by Watkins and colleagues (2024) revealed that single young adults who reported greater dismissal of romantic relationships experienced greater satisfaction with their love life and general life.

The final intrapersonal factor presented by Girme and colleagues (2023) is age. First, previous studies have indicated that older single individuals experience and perceive their singlehood differently than younger single individuals do. In particular, older single individuals may report greater perceived difficulty altering their single status (see Hill Roy et al., 2023 for a discussion). Similarly, depressive symptoms among never-married individuals are similar to married individuals’ depressive symptoms until the moment they pass their desired age to marry (Carlson, 2012). Furthermore, single women (but not men) with a relatively weak desire for a partner beyond midlife report greater life satisfaction, whereas single individuals who strongly desire a partner later in life have lower levels of life satisfaction (Hill Roy et al., 2023). Finally, a study by Park, Page-Gould et al. (2022) revealed that in midlife (approximately age 40), single people may experience increased satisfaction with singlehood.

The intrapersonal factors described by Girme and colleagues (2023) are not exhaustive; rather, this list offers a new framework and jumping-off point to search for other factors related to single people’s mental health and well-being. Therefore, with regard to single people’s well-being and ill-being, we propose six additional factors: (1) romantic loneliness, (2) satisfaction with relationship status, (3) relationship congruency, (4) duration of singlehood, (5) gender and (6) living arrangements. Some of these factors have been well documented in previous studies.

First, the experience of loneliness is one of the most widely investigated correlates and outcomes of singlehood (Adamczyk, 2016). Loneliness is a subjective, unpleasant, and distressing feeling that is experienced due to a discrepancy between the desired and actual quantity and quality of social contact (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). In general, individuals in close relationships experience lower levels of loneliness than those who are single (e.g., Adamczyk, 2016; Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016). Notably, single individuals experience higher levels of general loneliness and domain-specific loneliness (i.e., romantic loneliness) than their coupled counterparts do (Adamczyk, 2016; Mund & Johnson, 2021).

Second, in 2015, Lehmann and colleagues proposed the construct of satisfaction with relationship status, which reflects the degree to which people are satisfied with having or not having a partner. Previous studies revealed higher levels of satisfaction with relationship status among partnered individuals (Adamczyk, 2019), and satisfaction with relationship status has been found to be more predictive of life satisfaction and psychological distress than relationship status alone (Adamczyk, 2019; Lehmann et al., 2015). Furthermore, satisfaction with relationship status has been found to be positively related to emotional and psychological well-being and negatively related to romantic loneliness and depressive symptoms (Adamczyk, 2019). Notably, Lehmann and colleagues (2015) reported that single individuals who often or always preferred to be in a romantic relationship experienced lower levels of satisfaction with their single status than single individuals who never, seldom, or sometimes desired a partner.

Third, in the current investigation, we propose including a construct of relationship congruency. This construct, which reflects the degree to which an individual’s relationship status (including single status) is congruent with an individual’s romantic desires, has been recently analyzed with respect to mental health outcomes as a function of various relationship statuses (Adamczyk et al., 2023). In general, the congruency (between people’s wants and needs and what they have) is related to greater satisfaction (Michalos, 1985). This concept is supported, for example, by a study by Dykstra (1995) in which individuals whose relationship status was not congruent with their relationship ideal (i.e., based on their attitudes toward relationships) experienced higher levels of loneliness, which in turn were related to a lower desire to be single and a greater desire to have a partner compared with individuals whose relationship status aligned with their ideal (i.e., congruent) (Dykstra, 1995).

The term relationship congruency appears to be related to the constructs of desire for a romantic partner and voluntary versus involuntary singlehood. First, relationship congruency directly builds on the desire for a romantic partner because this desire determines the degree of the mismatch between an individual’s romantic desires and relationship status. Second, relationship congruency emphasizes romantic desires and their satisfaction, whereas voluntary versus involuntary singlehood highlights the perception of reasons for singlehood in terms of personal decisions and choices versus external circumstances. These dimensions are interrelated in complex ways with respect to the experience of singlehood. For example, we can imagine a scenario in which an individual opts for voluntary singlehood after a recent break-up or divorce but still desires a romantic partner and experiences a mismatch (incongruency) between this desire and current singlehood. This assumption is prompted by Hostetler’s (2009) study, in which most participants were voluntarily single and most reported a desire for a partner. In other words, individuals may perceive their single status as chosen or caused by external circumstances and simultaneously want to be in relationship (Girme et al., 2023; Hostetler, 2009), which is related to the sense of congruency between relational desires and the presence or absence of single status.

Fourth, the considerations related to the construct of voluntary versus involuntary singlehood draw attention to the issue of the length of singlehood. Singlehood may be a temporary status for some individuals, whereas for it is a stable status for others, particularly those who weakly desire to be in a romantic relationship (Tessler, 2023). Stability reflects the choice of singlehood as well as independence, self-fulfillment, and autonomy (Tessler, 2023; Timonen & Doyle, 2014). Moreover, previous studies have shown that remaining single for a longer duration is associated with greater levels of romantic loneliness (Adamczyk, 2016) and that stable singlehood is related to loneliness among women but not among men (Nicolaisen & Thorsen, 2024).

Fifth, the relationship between well-being and singlehood is influenced by gender. Research has shown higher levels of life satisfaction and physical health among coupled men compared with women, while other studies have found greater life satisfaction among married women than among men (e.g., Grover & Helliwell, 2019). However, other studies have revealed no gender differences (see Girme et al., 2023). Moreover, the literature suggests that women and men may experience singlehood differently. For example, single men report lower levels of perceived social support and higher levels of loneliness (Girme et al., 2023), higher levels of depression and anxiety, and lower levels of well-being than single women do (see Davies, 1995, for a review). Additionally, previous studies suggest that single women may experience more negative perceptions than single men do because of societal expectations of women as more strongly oriented toward intimate relationships than men (Girme et al., 2023).

Finally, the relationship between loneliness and general well-being is affected by living arrangements. Some researchers have used this aspect to define singlehood by household composition, that is, whether a person lives alone (see Mortelmans et al., 2023; van den Berg & Verbakel, 2022). Previous studies have shown that living in larger households (i.e., not living alone) is a protective factor against loneliness (Victor & Yang, 2012), and older adults who are persistently lonely are more likely to live alone than those who are persistently not lonely (Newall et al., 2014).

To structure the range of factors analyzed in the current investigation, an overview of the general conceptual framework of the study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

An overview of conceptual framework applied in the current investigation.

As Figure 1 shows, within the category of intrapersonal factors, we assume a central role of satisfaction with singlehood in well-being. This assumption arises from previous studies that have shown that satisfaction with relationship status may have more explanatory value for predicting psychological distress and life satisfaction than mere relationship status (i.e., the mere fact of having or not having a life partner) (Adamczyk, 2019; Lehmann et al., 2015).

Insights offered by network analysis

Network analysis is a unique method that allows for in-depth exploration of models that combine psychological, behavioral, and environmental data (Burger et al., 2023). Network analysis enables the visualization and interpretation of complex interactions among various types of data by constructing a network that comprises variables (nodes) and the relationships between them (edges) (Epskamp & Isvoranu, 2022), even without a solid theory (Borsboom et al., 2021), from an exploratory perspective.

This approach has gained greater recognition in recent years, especially within the field of mental health research (Briganti et al., 2024), because it can reflect the interconnectivity, complexity and multifaceted nature of mental health disorders as biopsychosocial systems (Davies & Roache, 2017; Kendler et al., 2011). The network theory of mental health disorders (Borsboom, 2017) underscores the importance of interactions among specific symptoms. However, network analysis also uses scale-level mental health indices to examine risk and protective factors (Koelen et al., 2022). This approach was applied in our study.

Network analysis yields results after controlling for all variables in the proposed network (Burger et al., 2023). Thus, by employing network analysis, researchers can investigate the associations among factors while holding others constant, which may reveal essential pathways (e.g., Kolbuszewska et al., 2024). Identifying these relationships may also guide future clinical work with single adults by targeting the specific factors that are most relevant to mental health and well-being (see Jackson, 2018; Watkins et al., 2024).

Method

Participants

This research was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research with the People as Study Participants at the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland (Decision number: 2/07/2020). All participants provided informed consent and consented to the publication of their data in a peer-reviewed journal. This research was not preregistered.

With respect to power analysis and sample size, a larger sample size is considered more stable and provides accurate network estimation (Hevey, 2018). However, predicting network structure and edge weights is difficult because little guidance for a priori power analysis exists (Hevey, 2018).

In Studies 1 and 2, the major inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) at least 18 years old; (2) single (i.e., no life partner/spouse) for at least six months, a time criterion that was also applied in other studies (e.g., Adamczyk, 2016; Hoan & MacDonald, 2024a); and (3) not separated, a criterion that ensured that participants did not have partners in both formal and informal terms.

In Study 1, 1243 individuals began the survey, and 650 completed the measures of interest, met the inclusion criteria, and agreed to participate in the study. The ages of the included participants ranged from 18–56 years (M = 32.60, SD = 6.81). Of the participants, 56.50% identified as cisgender women and 43.50% identified as cisgender men. In Study 2, the initial database consisted of 1502 participants, but 96 participants (6.39%) who reported being separated were excluded. Therefore, the sample included 1406 individuals aged 18–92 years (M = 43.41, SD = 16.93) who were Polish speakers. Of the participants in Study 2, 61.90% identified as cisgender women and 38.10% identified as cisgender men. The detailed sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1, including the differences between the two samples.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants in study 1 and 2.

Variable	Study 1 N = 650	Study 2 N = 1406	Effect size
Age, years			0.75***
Range	18–56	18–92
M (SD)	32.60 (6.81)	43.41 (16.93)
Gender, n (%)			.05*
Cisgender women	367 (56.50%)	871 (61.90%)
Cisgender men	283 (43.50%)	535 (38.10%)
Place of residence, n (%)			.39***
Village	66 (10.20%)	454 (32.30%)
City up to 20,000	23 (3.50%)	169 (12%)
City 20,000–99,000	119 (18.30%)	286 (20.30%)
City 100,000–500,000	129 (19.80%)	292 (20.80%)
City >500,000	313 (48.20%)	205 (14.60%)
Living arrangement			.11***
Living alone	338 (52%)	529 (37.60%)
Living with a child/children	29 (4.50%)	200 (14.20%)
Living with parents/siblings	193 (29.70%)	604 (43%)
Living with friends/acquaintances	50 (7.70%)	40 (2.80%)
Living with non- acquaintances	34 (5.20%)	24 (1.70%)
Other	6 (0.90%)	9 (0.60%)
Highest education, n (%)			.14***
Primary education	5 (0.80%)	26 (1.80%)
Middle school	1 (0.20%)	27 (1.90%)
Lower secondary education	125 (19.20%)	600 (42.70%)
Vocational education	5 (0.80%)	129 (9.20%)
Bachelor degree	115 (17.70%)	157 (11.20%)
Master’s degree	364 (56%)	438 (31.20%)
Ph.D. and higher	35 (5.40%)	29 (2.10%)
Employment			.31***
Unemployment	46 (7.10%)	212 (15.10%)
Casual/permanent work	564 (86.80%)	853 (60.70%)
Pension	11 (1.70%)	101 (7.20%)
Retirement	1 (0.20%)	212 (15.10%)
Other	28 (4.30%)	28 (2%)
Subjective financial situation			-
Very difficult	-	109 (7.80%)
Difficult	-	277 (19.70%)
Average	-	705 (50.10%)
Good	-	273 (19.40%)
Very good	-	42 (3%)
Relationship status, n (%)			.34***
Never-married	346 (53.20%)	770 (54.80%)
Never in a relationship	240 (36.90%)	181 (12.90%)
Divorced	64 (9.80%)	253 (18%)
Widowed	-	202 (14.40%)
Length of singlehood (in years), M (SD)	9.97 (12.03)	11.26 (11.78)	0.11*
Having children, n (%)			.27***
Yes	55 (8.50%)	478 (34%)
No	595 (91.50%)	928 (66%)
Sexual orientation, n (%)			.30***
Heterosexual individuals	526 (80.90%)	1160 (82.50%)
Homosexual individuals	41 (6.30%)	63 (4.50%)
Bisexual individuals	55 (8.50%)	70 (5%)
I do not know	15 (2.30%)	97 (6.90%)
Other	13 (2%)	16 (1.10%)
Religion, n (%)			.12***
Roman catholic	273 (42%)	1000 (71.10%)
Protestant	10 (1.50%)	23 (1.60%)
Judaism	1 (0.50%)	2 (0.10%)
Baptism	2 (0.30%)	-
Lutheranism	6 (0.90%)	-
Other protestant	2 (0.30%)	-
Buddhism	10 (1.50%)	12 (0.90%)
Hinduism	-	1 (0.10%)
Islam	1 (0.50%)	-
New age	3 (0.50%)	4 (0.30%)
Atheism	181 (27,8)	251 (17.90%)
Agnosticism	144 (22.20%)	81 (5.80%)
Other	17 (2.60%)	32 (2.30%)

Note. Effect sizes quantify the magnitude of differences between Study 1 and Study 2 samples.

Effect size: Cohen’s d for continuous variables and phi coefficient/Cramer’s V for categorical variables.

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

As Table 1 shows, most of the participants in Studies 1 and 2 were never-married, childfree, heterosexual, Catholic, and employed. The mean length of singlehood differed slightly between the studies and was more than nine years in Study 1 and more than 11 years in Study 2. The participants in Study 1 were significantly younger than those in Study 2 with a medium effect size. The majority of the participants in Study 1 lived alone in a city with more than 500,000 inhabitants and had a master’s degree. Most of the participants in Study 2 lived with others (parents or siblings) in rural areas and had less secondary education. The effect size for the observed differences in sociodemographic characteristics ranged from .05 for gender to 0.75 for age. Bearing in mind the recommendation of not marginalizing small effects in psychology (Götz et al., 2022) and Funder and Ozer’s (2019) proposition for interpreting correlation effect sizes (i.e., r = .05, very small effect; r = . 10, small effect; r = .20, medium effect; r = .30, large effect; r = .40 or greater, very large effect), the sociodemographic differences between the two samples may be interpreted as ranging from a very small effect through a medium and large effect to a very large effect. Moreover, in our analyses, we followed the recommendation of evaluating the relevance of effect size not in an absolute manner but rather by considering its theoretical and empirical context (Primbs et al., 2023). As a result, in our substantial network analysis, we also included age, gender and living arrangements as essential sociodemographic characteristics with respect to the well-being of single adults.

Procedure

The participants in Study 1 were recruited via advertisements posted on Facebook pages affiliated with the current project. The participants could win lottery vouchers of varying values (20, 40, 60, and 100 PLN; ≈ 5, 10, 15, and 24 USD) for a Polish online shop. In Study 2, single participants were recruited online through the Ariadna research panel (https://www.panelariadna.com), which was used to administer the survey and provide the participants with compensation in line with their regulations. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the participants could withdraw from the study at any time.

Measures

Emotional and psychological well-being were assessed via the Polish adaptation (Karaś et al., 2014) of the 14-item Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC–SF; Keyes, 2002).

Emotional well-being was assessed using three items (e.g., “During the past month, how often did you feel happy?”), and psychological well-being was assessed using six items (e.g., “During the past month, how often did you feel that your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it?”), which were rated on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (every day). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for emotional well-being and psychological well-being were α = .91 and α = .89 in Study 1, respectively, and α = .91 and α = 93 in Study 2, respectively.

Anxiety and depression were measured with the Polish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4; Kroenke et al., 2009) (the Polish translation is available at https://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener). The PHQ-4 includes the instruction “Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?” and consists of two items to assess anxiety (e.g., “Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge”) and depression (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”) over the past two weeks. The participants rated the items on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost every day). The internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha was α = .87 for anxiety and α = .84 for depression in Study 1 and α = .88 and α = .81 in Study 2.

Romantic loneliness was measured with the Polish version (Adamczyk & DiTommaso, 2014) of a 5-item subscale of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults–Short Form (SELSA-S; DiTommaso et al., 2004). The participants were asked to respond to statements (e.g., “In the last month, I had an unmet need for a close romantic relationship”) using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were α = .67 in Study 1 and α = .78 in Study 2.

The desire to have a partner was measured in Study 1 with one item, “I would like to have a partner and be in a relationship”, rated on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (to a great extent). In Study 2, the desire to have a partner was measured by the Polish translation of the 5 items (e.g., “I want to have a romantic partner”) designed by MacDonald and Park (2022) and rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s α coefficient was α = .91.

Voluntary singlehood was assessed by two items that measured the degree to which remaining single resulted from a person’s decision or external circumstances. The two items (“The fact that I do not currently have a partner is my personal decision” and “The fact that I do not currently have a partner results from external factors beyond my control”) were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s α coefficient was α = .67.

The fear of being single was measured using the Polish version of the Fear of Being Single Scale (Adamczyk et al., 2021) (FBSS; Spielmann et al., 2013). The FBSS contains six items (e.g., “I feel anxious when I think about being single forever”) with response options on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the current sample was α = .86 in Study 1 and Study 2.

Relationship congruency was measured with two items that assessed the degree to which a person experienced his or her single status as congruent with the desire to have a romantic partner. The two items (“The fact that I currently do not have a partner is congruent with my desires” and “I would like to change my situation and find a partner”) were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s α coefficients were α = .83 in Study 1 and α = .73 in Study 2.

Satisfaction with relationship status was measured with the Polish version (Adamczyk, 2019) of the 5-item Satisfaction with Relationship Status Scale (ReSta; Lehmann et al., 2015). The participants were asked to respond to statements (e.g., “In general, how satisfied are you with your current status?”) using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (to a great extent). In the present study, Cronbach’s α coefficients were α = .93 in Study 1 and α = .91 in Study 2.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The participants provided basic sociodemographic information (i.e., relationship status, sex, age, education, place of residence, living arrangements, education, employment, having or not having children, religion).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics for the major study variables were determined in SPSS version 28 and are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the major study variables in study 1 and 2.

Variable	Study 1 N = 650		Study 2 N = 1406		Difference			Effect size
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Difference	95% CI difference	t-statistic	Cohen’s d	95% CI
Well-being
Emotional well-being	2.26	1.27	2.60	1.30	0.34	0.22, 0.46	5.55***	0.26	0.17, 0.36
Psychological well-being	2.50	1.29	2.80	1.28	0.30	0.18, 0.42	4.93***	0.23	0.14, 0.33
Ill-being
Anxiety	1.35	1.00	1.02	0.94	−0.33	−0.42, 0.24	−7.25***	−0.34	−0.44, −0.25
Depression	1.35	0.99	1.05	0.90	−0.30	−0.39, −0.21	−6.81***	−0.32	−0.42, −0.23
Singlehood-related factors
Desire for a romantic partner*	2.11	0.92	4.37	1.67	-	-	-	-	-
Voluntary singlehood	2.50	0.86	2.66	0.81	0.16	0.08, 0.24	4.08***	0.19	0.10, 0.29
Duration of singlehood (in years)	9.97	12.03	11.26	11.78	1.29	0.19, 2.39	2.29*	0.11	0.02, 0.20
Relationship congruency	1.92	0.85	2.53	0.44	0.61	0.55, 0.67	21.41***	1.02	0.92, 1.11
Satisfaction with singlehood	1.37	0.94	1.49	0.91	0.12	0.03, 0.21	2.75	0.13	0.04, 0.22
Fear of being single	3.09	1.13	2.77	1.08	−0.32	−0.27, −0.03	−6.16***	−0.29	−0.39, −0.20
Romantic loneliness	2.74	1.15	2.59	1.37	−0.15	−2.76, −2.52	−2.42^a	−0.12	−0.21, −0.02

Note. p-values are two-tailed.

^aDesire for a romantic partner was not compared due to the utilization of different instruments to assess desire to have a partner in Study 1 and Study 2.

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

As Table 2 shows, the analyses that compared the mean levels of the major study variables revealed significant differences between Studies 1 and 2. However, the effect size of the majority of these differences was weak in magnitude or had no effect (see Funder & Ozer, 2019 for interpretation), with the exception of the large effect size for relationship congruency, which was greater for the participants in Study 2 than the participants in Study 1.

Network analysis

The network analysis was performed in R version 4.3.1. mgm (version 1.2–14) and qgraph (version 1.9.5). With respect to the theoretical background of the analysis, we classified the analyzed variables into four groups: (1) singlehood-related sociodemographic variables (age, sex, and living arrangements), (2) well-being (emotional and psychological well-being), (3) ill-being (anxiety and depression), and (4) intrapersonal singlehood-related variables (duration of singlehood, desire to have a romantic partner, decision to be single, relationship congruency, satisfaction with singlehood, fear of being single and romantic loneliness). The categorical variables were gender (0 = man, 1 = woman) and living arrangements (0 = living alone, 1 = living with others).

We estimated a mixed graphical model (Haslbeck & Waldorp, 2020) in both datasets and included sex and living arrangements as categorical variables and all other variables as continuous variables. Given our interest in the overall network structure and discovering the strongest edges, we used LASSO regularization via cross-validation to select the optimal tuning parameter (Isvoranu & Epskamp, 2023). We used resampling with 1000 bootstrap samples to assess the stability of the estimated networks.

We visualized both estimated mixed graphical models as a network in which all variables were included as nodes connected by edges, representing conditional dependence relationships (Borsboom et al., 2021). The blue edges represented positive conditional dependence relations, and the red edges represented negative conditional dependence relations. Therefore, an edge between two nodes represented the unique association between those two nodes while controlling for all other nodes in the network. The thickness and saturation of the edges represented the strength of the relationships between the nodes. The networks for Study 1 and Study 2 are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.

Figure 2.

Network of single adults’ well-being and ill-being model in Study 1 (N = 650). Note. The dichotomized nodes are as follows: Gender (man = 0, woman = 1), Living Arrangements (living alone = 0, living with others = 1). Blue edges represent positive relationships; red edges represent negative relationships. The thickness of the edges represents the strength of the relationships between the nodes.

Figure 3.

Network of single adults’ well-being and ill-being model in Study 2 (N = 1406). Note. The dichotomized nodes are as follows: Gender (man = 0, woman = 1), Living Arrangements (living alone = 0, living with others = 1). Blue edges represent positive relationships; red edges represent negative relationships. The thickness of the edges represents the strength of the relationships between the nodes.

To evaluate the role of individual nodes in the network, we computed strength centrality, defined as the sum of the absolute values of all the edges (Opsahl et al., 2010). We used z values to compare the values across the two graphs. In both networks, the most strongly connected variable was satisfaction with singlehood. The strength centrality values for Study 1 and Study 2 are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.

Figure 4.

Standardized centrality value nodes in the estimated network in Study 1 (N = 650). Note. Sat: Satisfaction with singlehood; Desire: Desire for a romantic partner; EW : Emotional well-being; Fear : Fear of being single; Dep: Depression; PW: Psychological well-being; RomLone: Romantic loneliness; RC: Relationship congruency; Anx: Anxiety; Dur: Duration of singlehood; VS: Voluntary singlehood; LA: Living arrangements.

Figure 5.

Standardized centrality value nodes in the estimated network in Study 2 (N = 1406). Note. Sat: Satisfaction with singlehood; Desire: Desire for a romantic partner; EW: Emotional well-being; Fear: Fear of being single; Dep: Depression; PW: Psychological well-being; RomLone: Romantic loneliness; RC: Relationship congruency; Anx: Anxiety; Dur: Duration of singlehood; VS: Voluntary singlehood; LA: Living arrangements.

To compare the networks across the two samples, we computed the correlation between the weighted adjacency matrices in both samples. The weighted adjacency matrix of the two samples was 0.85, indicating that the overall network structure of the estimated networks in the two samples was highly similar.

The bootstrap samples revealed that the strongest edges in the networks were highly stable and were retrieved in 90%–100% of the bootstrap samples. The results for Study 1 are presented in Figure S1 and those for Study 2 are presented in Figure S2 in the supplemental materials, available at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/bxr39/?view_only=6477cb1cb9524834aa640a7a596a8b74.

Discussion

To improve clarity and comprehensiveness with regard to the factors related to single individuals’ well-being and ill-being, we examined the role of both sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, living arrangements) and intrapersonal factors directly related to singlehood (i.e., the desire to have a partner, voluntary singlehood, relationship congruency, satisfaction with singlehood, fear of being single, and romantic loneliness) in the well-being of single individuals, measured in terms of emotional and psychological well-being, anxiety and depression. Importantly, by utilizing data collected in two separate studies, we were able to assess the replicability of the pattern of associations.

The network analyses revealed that in both samples, the strongest node for the network was satisfaction with singlehood, which suggests that this is a crucial factor for single individuals’ well-being and ill-being. Therefore, this pattern of findings supported our assumption of the pivotal role of satisfaction with singlehood in positive and negative indicators of well-being.

In Studies 1 and 2, we found a repeated pattern in which greater satisfaction with singlehood was directly linked to greater relationship congruency, voluntary singlehood, and emotional well-being. In contrast, lower satisfaction with singlehood was directly associated with a greater desire for a romantic partner and greater fear of being single. Thus, factors related to singlehood and emotional well-being were most strongly and directly related to satisfaction with singlehood.

Importantly, the relationship between voluntary singlehood and satisfaction with singlehood was not only direct but also positively mediated by relationship congruency and negatively mediated by a desire for a romantic partner. These findings indicate that individuals who perceived themselves as remaining single due to their personal decision were more satisfied with singlehood via higher relationship congruency and lower desire for a partner. These findings revealed the mechanism that shapes satisfaction with singlehood, which is a key factor in well-being and ill-being.

Our results also revealed associations among a greater desire for a romantic partner, higher levels of romantic loneliness and the fear of being single. These associations provide a congruent picture of factors related to satisfaction with singlehood and support previous studies that show that greater desire for a relationship is associated with lower satisfaction with being single among single adults (Hill Roy et al., 2023; Kislev, 2021; MacDonald & Park, 2022; Park et al., 2022). These findings emphasize the role of the desire for a romantic partner in determining the degree of congruency between this desire and single status since a greater mismatch between romantic interest and current relationship status is related to negative outcomes (Beckmeyer & Cromwell, 2019; Dykstra, 1995). Therefore, when single individuals report a lower relationship congruency, they are more likely to report higher desire for a romantic partner, lower satisfaction with singlehood and less personal decision in choosing singlehood.

Moreover, the current investigation identified a link between greater emotional well-being and satisfaction with singlehood. This finding is consistent with past studies that have shown positive links between satisfaction with singlehood and life satisfaction (Lehmann et al., 2015) and emotional well-being (Adamczyk, 2019). Satisfaction with singlehood may affect emotional well-being, but emotional well-being also influences satisfaction with singlehood. These associations are plausibly reciprocal and nonrecursive because top-down models are useful in explaining life satisfaction, but the links between domain and life satisfaction should also be considered in comprehensive models of satisfaction (Heller et al., 2004).

Our analyses also revealed a complex and inconsistent role of singlehood duration. Specifically, in both samples, remaining single for a longer period was related to lower levels of romantic loneliness and greater fear of being single. Romantic loneliness plays a vital role in the desire to have a partner and the fear of being single, which, in turn, lowers satisfaction with singlehood. Previous studies have shown that a longer duration of singlehood is related to greater levels of romantic loneliness (Adamczyk, 2016). However, the study by Adamczyk (2016) was conducted with a sample consisting predominantly of students, who are more vulnerable to mental health issues, particularly depression (Benatov et al., 2022; Ochnik et al., 2021). Moreover, the duration of singlehood in the study by Adamczyk (2016) was shorter (M = 7.66 years; SD = 8.99) than the duration in the present study, which included more diverse and representative samples.

Loneliness is an aversive state that motivates people to take action to mitigate their negative feelings (Cacioppo et al., 2013). However, we found that an increased duration of singlehood was linked to lower levels of romantic loneliness among single individuals. On the one hand, this result shows that single individuals who feel lonelier remain single for a shorter period because loneliness becomes an aversive signal that motivates these individuals to maintain or replace safe and supportive social connections. On the other hand, those who remain single for a longer period become less romantically lonely. This approach may be an adaptative strategy to singlehood because high levels of romantic loneliness have negative outcomes, such as lower satisfaction with singlehood, greater fear of being single, and the desire for a romantic partner.

Moreover, habituation to an aversive signal of loneliness may appear throughout stable singlehood. While extended singlehood is associated with reduced romantic loneliness, it is also linked to greater fear of being single. Thus, a longer period of singlehood is linked to a more pronounced fear of being alone or having children in the future. In other words, remaining single is related to a negative future perspective on life. Notably, romantic loneliness is not strongly related to the decision to be single. Regardless of whether the decision is perceived as personal or due to external circumstances, it does not directly affect levels of romantic loneliness.

The analyses also revealed a positive link between the fear of being single and depressive symptoms in Studies 1 and 2 and the fear of being single and anxiety in Study 2. This association was replicated in both studies and is consistent with past research showing an association between a greater fear of being single and depressive symptoms (Adamczyk et al., 2021; Spielmann et al., 2013).

With respect to sociodemographic characteristics, living alone was the least crucial factor in the model of single adults’ well-being, whereas sex and age (in Study 2) played a more central role. Specifically, living alone was weakly linked to satisfaction with singlehood. However, in Study 2, living alone was linked to satisfaction with singlehood via sex among older, less educated participants who mainly lived in rural areas; living with others and younger age were related to being female, and single women had higher satisfaction with singlehood. Thus, living with others was more favorable for single women, but only among older individuals. Overall, living alone played a modest role in the model of well-being related to singlehood.

Our study revealed that single individuals who lived alone experienced greater levels of romantic loneliness, although this relationship was very weak. Research has shown that living alone is a high-risk factor for mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015) and is linked to loneliness (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016; Newall et al., 2014; Victor & Yang, 2012). However, a recent study of diverse groups of never-married and divorced single individuals revealed that single people who lived alone, regardless of gender and marital status, were more satisfied with singlehood than single individuals who lived with others (Ochnik, 2023). The present investigation revealed links among the variables when all other variables in the network were controlled. Therefore, there is more complexity in the relationships among these variables, including romantic loneliness and satisfaction with singlehood.

Our study also revealed that being a single woman was related to greater satisfaction with singlehood. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that never-married single women are more satisfied with singlehood than never-married single men across cultures (Ochnik & Slonim, 2020) as well as a recent investigation by Hoan and MacDonald (2024a). However, being a single woman was positively linked to anxiety, which confirms the findings of past studies showing that women are more vulnerable to anxiety disorders (McLean et al., 2011). Additionally, being a woman was related to a shorter duration of singlehood, lower fear of singlehood, and lower levels of romantic loneliness. This pattern contradicts the recent findings of a study by Lim and colleagues (2023), who showed that being male was a protective factor against episodic or chronic loneliness. However, in the current investigation, we assessed a specific type of loneliness in the domain of romantic relationships. Similar to our findings, recent research on romantic loneliness (Girme et al., 2023) has revealed that single men reported greater levels of romantic loneliness. In general, our model showed that although being a single woman was linked to general mental health issues, it was also linked to better psychological functioning in terms of singlehood, such as greater satisfaction with singlehood, lower fear of being single, and lower levels of romantic loneliness.

Age played a different role in well-being among single individuals depending on the sample. In Study 2 (18–92 years old), age played a more central role than it did among the younger participants in Study 1 (18–56 years old). Previous research has shown that single individuals who are older perceive singlehood differently than younger single individuals do (Hill Roy et al., 2023). In the present study, older age was linked to a longer duration of singlehood, lower anxiety, and lower satisfaction with singlehood in the older sample. However, these links did not emerge in the younger sample in Study 1. More educated single individuals who lived in large cities experienced satisfaction with singlehood regardless of age (Study 1), whereas older age was related to lower satisfaction with singlehood among less educated single individuals who lived in rural areas (Study 2). This finding of age-related decreases in satisfaction with singlehood contradicts findings obtained by Park and colleagues (2024), who reported no age-related differences in satisfaction with singlehood among individuals in early and middle adulthood, although satisfaction with singlehood increased with age in middle to late adulthood (approximately 40s–80s). Overall, in our study, age was related to well-being (psychological and emotional) more than to singlehood-related factors. This finding suggests that age affects general well-being rather than singlehood-related well-being.

Limitations and future research directions

The present investigation is not without limitations. The first major limitation arises from the use of cross-sectional data, which precludes the causal interpretation of results. Longitudinal studies, experimental studies, or experience sampling methods (ESM) are necessary to extend knowledge in this field.

Second, our studies were based on Polish individuals. As a result, our findings are limited to a particular cultural context characterized by firm adherence to traditional forms of marital and family life (Janicka & Szymczak, 2019). Additionally, our participants identified primarily as never married (particularly in Study 1), childfree, heterosexual, Roman Catholic, and employed. Further replication in other countries characterized by different marital and relational contexts and in more diverse (in terms of marital history, having children, sexual orientation, religion or religious denomination, and employment status) groups of single adults is needed to improve the generalizability of our findings.

Third, we used two items designed by the authors to measure the decision to remain single and relationship congruency (Studies 1 and 2) and one item to measure the desire for a partner (Study 1). The use of these brief measures limits their reliability and validity and increases measurement error.

Fourth, we analyzed selected sociodemographic and intrapersonal characteristics and omitted factors at the interpersonal and societal levels, as distinguished by Girme and colleagues (2023). Additionally, we focused on selected indicators of well-being in the current investigation. Further research would benefit from including other sociodemographic factors, such as income or employment status, and other intrapersonal factors, such as personality, which has recently been found to play a crucial role in the link between well-being and relationship status (Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b). Additionally, including interpersonal (e.g., social support and networks; Girme et al., 2023) and societal factors (e.g., social stigma and discrimination; Girme et al., 2023), as well as other indicators of general well-being (e.g., subjective well-being) and domain-specific indicators (e.g., satisfaction with family, friends, and work), would broaden the understanding of single individuals’ well-being.

Finally, an important limitation of our investigation is the lack of data on the participants’ disability status. The intersection of singlehood and other social categories (e.g., disability) has been suggested to constitute a source of unique personal experiences and well-being outcomes (Kislev & Marsh, 2023). For example, recent analyses revealed that disability severely limits the chances of partnerships by 60% or more, and women with mobility disabilities have a 94% greater risk of living alone (men have a risk of 41%) than nondisabled women do (Vikström et al., 2024). Future research should examine the effect of the intersection of multiple marginalized identities on well-being outcomes.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first investigation to provide a complete picture of the associations between sociodemographic and intrapersonal characteristics from a holistic perspective through network analysis, an exploratory type of analysis (Epskamp & Isvoranu, 2022). The exploratory nature of this analysis enabled us to determine the best-fitting models to explain the links between sociodemographic and intrapersonal factors with reference to single individuals’ well-being and ill-being in the data collected from two samples. In future studies, researchers are encouraged to conduct confirmatory analyses of models identified in the current investigation, including the current confirmatory network analysis, which aimed to assess the fit of a predefined network structure as confirmatory factor analysis (Epskamp & Isvoranu, 2022).

From a theoretical perspective, this study demonstrates the complex associations between sociodemographic factors and intrapersonal factors related to singlehood with well-being and ill-being. The findings reveal that the model of single people’s well-being is affected by general positive well-being, mental health issues, and sociodemographic characteristics. Moreover, our findings suggest that the pivotal factor in the model—satisfaction with singlehood—is affected more strongly by relationship congruency, the desire to have a partner, and the fear of being single than by single individuals’ emotional well-being or mental health.

Practically, in line with the suggestion that relationship education can also be responsive to single adults (Watkins et al., 2024), our findings may be used to inform educational or intervention actions to promote single individuals’ well-being. Our study showed that satisfaction with singlehood is crucial for well-being among single individuals. As proposed by Watkins and colleagues (2024), educators can help single people recognize how their romantic desires and feelings about seeking a partner affect their functioning. It may be essential to help single individuals understand the meaning of singlehood and focus on specific aspects of their lives and their satisfaction with singlehood. These actions may facilitate satisfaction with and acceptance of singlehood, increase the positive cognitive appraisal of satisfaction with singlehood and protect against low levels of well-being.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were approved by the Ethics Committee for Research with the People as Study Participants at the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland (Decision number: 2/07/2020).

Footnotes

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Dominika Ochnik,Katarzyna Adamczyk;Methodology: Katarzyna Adamczyk,Dominika Ochnik;Formal analysis and investigation: Dominika Ochnik,Katarzyna Adamczyk;Writing - original draft preparation: Katarzyna Adamczyk,Dominika Ochnik;Writing - review and editing: Katarzyna Adamczyk,Dominika Ochnik;Funding acquisition: Katarzyna Adamczyk;Resources: Dominika Ochnik,Katarzyna Adamczyk;Supervision: Katarzyna Adamczyk.

Declaration of conflicting interest

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The research leading to these results received funding from Narodowe Centrum Nauki,Polska,awarded to Katarzyna Adamczyk under Grant Agreement No UMO-2019/34/E/HS6/00164.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices,the authors (Dominika Ochnik and Katarzyna Adamczyk) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at: the Open Science Framework at

. The materials used in the research are not available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: Katarzyna.Adamczyk@amu.edu.pl .

Informed consent

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

Consent to publish the data

Participants agreed to use their data in the publication.

ORCID iDs

Dominika Ochnik

Katarzyna Adamczyk

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated and analyzed in the study are publicly available at the Open Science Framework at

. The code for data analysis associated with the current submission is available at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/bxr39/?view_only=6477cb1cb9524834aa640a7a596a8b74

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online. The data can be obtained at the Open Science Framework at:

References

Adamczyk

(2016). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support among single and partnered young adults. Current Psychology, 35(4), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7

Adamczyk

(2017a). Direct and indirect effects of relationship status through satisfaction with relationship status and fear of being single on Polish young adults’ well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.056

Adamczyk

(2017b). Voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ mental health: An investigation of mediating role of romantic loneliness. Current Psychology, 36(4), 888–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9478-3

Adamczyk

(2019). Development and validation of a Polish-language version of the satisfaction with relationship status scale (ReSta). Current Psychology, 38(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9585-9

Adamczyk

DiTommaso

(2014). Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA-S). Psychological Topics, 23(3), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/t55306-000

Adamczyk

Segrin

(2015a). Direct and indirect effects of young adults’ relationship status on life satisfaction through loneliness and perceived social support. Psychologica Belgica, 55(4), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.bn

Adamczyk

Segrin

(2015b). Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered Polish young adults. Current Psychology, 34(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9242-5

Adamczyk

Trepanowski

Celejewska

Kosińska

Mamot

Palczewska

Rodziejczak

(2021). The Polish adaptation and further validation of the Fear of Being Single Scale (FBSS). Current Psychology, 40(5), 2499–2509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00192-2

Adamczyk

Watkins

Dębek

Kaczmarek

Łazarów

(2023). Relationship (in)congruency may differently impact mental health. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 23(3), Article 100376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100376

10.

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Cromwell

(2019). Romantic relationship status and emerging adult well-being: Accounting for romantic relationship interest. Emerging Adulthood, 7(4), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818772653

11.

Benatov

Ochnik

Rogowska

A. M.

Arzenšek

Mars Bitenc

(2022). Prevalence and sociodemographic predictors of mental health in a representative sample of young adults from Germany, Israel, Poland, and Slovenia: A longitudinal study during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031334

12.

Borsboom

(2017). A network theory of mental disorders. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 16(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20375

13.

Borsboom

Deserno

M. K.

Rhemtulla

Epskamp

Fried

E. I.

McNally

R. J.

Waldorp

L. J.

(2021). Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w

14.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Delevi

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x

15.

Briganti

Scutari

Epskamp

Borsboom

Hoekstra

R. H. A.

Golino

H. F.

Christensen

A. P.

Morvan

Ebrahimi

O. V.

Costantini

Heeren

Ron

Bringmann

L. F.

Huth

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Isvoranu

A. M.

Marsman

Blanken

Gilbert

McNally

R. J.

(2024). Network analysis: An overview for mental health research. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 33(4), Article e2034. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.2034

16.

Burger

Isvoranu

A. M.

Lunansky

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Epskamp

Hoekstra

R. H. A.

Fried

E. I.

Borsboom

Blanken

T. F.

(2023). Reporting standards for psychological network analyses in cross-sectional data. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 806–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000471

17.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Cacioppo

Boomsma

D. I.

(2013). Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cognition & Emotion, 28(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379

18.

Carlson

D. L.

(2012). Deviations from desired age at marriage: Mental health differences across marital status. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00995.x

19.

Davies

(1995). A closer look at gender and distress among the never married. Women & Health, 23(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v23n02_02

20.

Davies

Roache

(2017). Reassessing biopsychosocial psychiatry. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 210(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.1828

21.

DePaulo

B. M.

Morris

W. L.

(2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli162&3_01

22.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being. Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

23.

DiTommaso

Brannen

Best

L. A.

(2004). Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258450

24.

Dykstra

P. A.

(1995). Loneliness among the never and formerly married: The importance of supportive friendships and a desire for independence. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50(5), S321–S329. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/50B.5.S321

25.

Epskamp

Isvoranu

A. M.

(2022). New trends in network modeling of psychopathology. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 21(3), 463–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21017

26.

Fitzpatrick

(2023). Voluntary and involuntary singlehood: Salience of concepts from four theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(3), 506–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12526

27.

Funder

D. C.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

28.

Girme

Y. U.

Park

MacDonald

(2023). Coping or thriving? Reviewing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal factors associated with well-being in singlehood from a within-group perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(5), 1097–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221136119

29.

Götz

F. M.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

(2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483

30.

Grover

Helliwell

J. F.

(2019). How’s life at home? New evidence on marriage and the set point for happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(8), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20794

31.

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Waldorp

L. J.

(2020). mgm: Estimating time-varying mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data. Journal of Statistical Software, 93(8), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v093.i08

32.

Heller

Watson

Ilies

(2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 574–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574

33.

Hevey

(2018). Network analysis: A brief overview and tutorial. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1521283

34.

Hill Roy

Park

MacDonald

(2023). Age moderates the link between relationship desire and life satisfaction among singles. Personal Relationships, 30(3), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12497

35.

Hoan

MacDonald

(2024a). Personality and well-being across and within relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231225571

36.

Hoan

MacDonald

(2024b). “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves”: Gender differences in singles’ well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(6), 610–619. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241287960

37.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

T. B.

Baker

Harris

Stephenson

(2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

38.

Hostetler

A. J.

(2009). Single by choice? Assessing and understanding voluntary singlehood among mature gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(4), 499–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360902821486

39.

Isvoranu

A.-M.

Epskamp

(2023). Which estimation method to choose in network psychometrics? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 925–946. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000439

40.

Jackson

J. B.

(2018). The ambiguous loss of singlehood: Conceptualizing and treating singlehood ambiguous loss among never-married adults. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 40(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-018-9455-0

41.

Janicka

I. L.

Szymczak

(2019). Can close romantic relationships last? The commitment of partners in married and cohabitant couples. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 7(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2019.86129

42.

Karaś

Cieciuch

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2014). The Polish adaptation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.011

43.

Kendler

K. S.

Zachar

Craver

(2011). What kinds of things are psychiatric disorders? Psychological Medicine, 41(6), 1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003329171000

44.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

45.

Kislev

(2021). Reduced relationship desire is associated with better life satisfaction for singles in Germany: An analysis of pairfam data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(7), 2073–2083. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211005024

46.

Kislev

(2024). Singlehood as an identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 35(2), 258–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937

47.

Kislev

Marsh

(2023). Intersectionality in studying and theorizing singlehood. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12522

48.

Koelen

J. A.

Mansueto

A. C.

Finnemann

de Koning

van der Heijde

C. M.

Vonk

Wolters

N. E.

Klein

Epskamp

Wiers

R. W.

(2022). COVID-19 and mental health among at-risk university students: A prospective study into risk and protective factors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 31(1), Article e1901. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1901

49.

Kolbuszewska

M. T.

Tavares

I. M.

Nobre

P. J.

Dawson

S. J.

(2024). Using network analysis to model associations between psychological symptoms, sexual function, and sexual distress in women. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 24(3), Article 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100479

50.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B.

Löwe

(2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ–4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(09)70864-3

51.

Lehmann

Tuinman

M. A.

Braeken

Vingerhoets

A. J. J. M.

Sanderman

Hagedoorn

(2015). Satisfaction with relationship status: Development of a new scale and the role in predicting well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9503-x

52.

Lim

M. H.

Manera

K. E.

Owen

K. B.

Phongsavan

Smith

B. J.

(2023). The prevalence of chronic and episodic loneliness and social isolation from a longitudinal survey. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 12453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39289-x

53.

Luhmann

Hawkley

L. C.

(2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000117

54.

MacDonald

Park

(2022). Associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with life satisfaction, satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner. Personal Relationships, 29(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12416

55.

McLean

C. P.

Asnaani

Litz

B. T.

Hofmann

S. G.

(2011). Gender differences in anxiety disorders: Prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(8), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006

56.

Michalos

A. C.

(1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 347–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00333288

57.

Mortelmans

Claessens

Thielemans

(2023). Defining and measuring singlehood in family studies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(3), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12520

58.

Mund

Johnson

M. D.

(2021). Lonely me, lonely you: Loneliness and the longitudinal course of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(2), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00241-9

59.

Newall

N. E. G.

Chipperfield

J. G.

Bailis

D. S.

(2014). Predicting stability and change in loneliness in later life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513494951

60.

Nicolaisen

Thorsen

(2024). Gender differences in loneliness over time: A 15-year longitudinal study of men and women in the second part of life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 98(1), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/009141502311942

61.

Ochnik

(2023). Exploring satisfaction with singlehood among diverse groups of singles. In Chowkhani

Wynne

(Eds.), Singular selves: An introduction to singles studies (pp. 151–168). Routledge.

62.

Ochnik

Rogowska

A. M.

Kuśnierz

Jakubiak

Schütz

Held

M. J.

Arzenšek

Benatov

Berger

Korchagina

E. V.

Pavlova

Blažková

Aslan

Çınar

Cuero-Acosta

Y. A.

(2021). Mental health prevalence and predictors among university students in nine countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national study. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 18644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97697-3

63.

Ochnik

Slonim

(2020). Satisfaction with singlehood in never-married singles: The role of gender and culture. The Open Psychology Journal, 13(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350102013010017

64.

Opsahl

Agneessens

Skvoretz

(2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006

65.

Park

Girme

Y. U.

MacDonald

(2024). Three methodological approaches to studying singlehood. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1), Article e12884. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12884

66.

Park

Page-Gould

MacDonald

(2022). Satisfying singlehood as a function of age and cohort: Satisfaction with being single increases with age after midlife. Psychology and Aging, 37, 626–636.

67.

Perlman

Peplau

L. A.

(1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In Duck

Gilmour

(Eds.), Personal relationships: Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 31–56). Academic Press.

68.

Primbs

M. A.

Pennington

C. R.

Lakens

Silan

M. A. A.

Lieck

D. S. N.

Forscher

P. S.

Buchanan

E. M.

Westwood

S. J.

(2023). Are small effects the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science? A reply to Götz et al. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221100420

69.

Reynolds

Wetherell

Taylor

(2007). Choice and chance: Negotiating agency in narratives of singleness. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00708.x

70.

Soons

J. P. M.

Liefbroer

A. C.

(2008). Together is better? Effects of relationship status and resources on young adults’ well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(4), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508093789

71.

Spielmann

S. S.

MacDonald

Maxwell

J. A.

Joel

Peragine

Muise

Impett

E. A.

(2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1049–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034628

72.

Stein

P. J.

(1978). The lifestyles and life chances of the never-married. Marriage & Family Review, 1(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v01n04_01

73.

Tessler

(2023). The stability of singlehood: Limitations of the relationship status paradigm and a new theoretical framework for reimagining singlehood. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(3), 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12506

74.

Timonen

Doyle

(2014). Life-long singlehood: Intersections of the past and the present. Ageing and Society, 34(10), 1749–1770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000500

75.

van den Berg

Verbakel

(2022). Trends in singlehood in young adulthood in Europe. Advances in Life Course Research, 51, 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2021.100449

76.

Victor

C. R.

Yang

(2012). The prevalence of loneliness among adults: A case study of the United Kingdom. The Journal of Psychology, 146(1-2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.613875

77.

Vikström

Junkka

Karhina

(2024). Two centuries of disability disadvantages in Swedish partnerships. Disability & Society, 39(7), 1629–1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2160924

78.

Watkins

N. K.

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Jamison

T. B.

(2024). Exploring the associations between being single, romantic importance, and positive well-being in young adulthood. Family Relations, 73(1), 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12981

79.

Xia

Hudac

C. M.

(2023). Social connection constellations and individual well-being typologies: Using the loglinear modeling approach with latent variables. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(6), 1991–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00667-x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB