Are the Lifelong Single Satisfied with Being Single? The Link Between Past Intimate Relationships,
Social Networks and Singlehood
Alexandra-Andreea Ciritel
12
, Ann Berrington
12
, Brienna Perelli-Harris
12
1
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
2
Centre for Population Change, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Abstract
The pool of single people is diverse including individuals who had either a past intimate LAT or a
coresidential partner, but also those who never had an intimate partner, who have been lifelong
single. This study bridges the sociological and psychological literature in shedding light on how those
who had a LAT or a coresidential partner differ from the lifelong singles in their assessment of
satisfaction with being single. As social support is part and parcel of a satisfied life, this paper also asks
how satisfaction with friends and frequency of contacting parents is associated with satisfaction with
singlehood. Satisfaction with being single is a subjective well-being measure, indicating how people
accept their singlehood within a society where having a partner is strongly associated with a fulfilled
and happy life. Data from the German Family Panel is used to identify the past intimate relationships
of those single in the birth cohort 1971-1973. The results, based on linear regression analysis, suggest
that lifelong singles are more satisfied with their singlehood compared to those who had a past
intimate relationship. A higher satisfaction with friends and keeping in contact with parents are
related to higher satisfaction with singlehood. Yet, lifelong singles appear to receive less social support
than those who had past intimate relationships. The results point to the heterogeneity of those
lifelong single who might or might not have chosen to be single, and how a partner is not the only
prerequisite for a fulfilling life.
2
Introduction
The concept of singlehood is ambiguous and its definition varies. Previous research has defined
singlehood in different ways depending on the available data, on the methodological approach or
aim of the research. On one hand, singlehood is usually defined as not being in a coresidential
relationship (Dykstra and Poortman, 2010; Wiik and Dommermuth, 2014), but also as being never
married (Pudrovska et al., 2006; Ermer and Proulx, 2019), living without a partner (Perelli-Harris et
al., 2018; Ermer and Proulx, 2019) or living alone (Klinenberg, 2012). Nonetheless, these definitions
include some of the individuals who might actually have a non-coresidential intimate partner (a LAT
partner). On the other hand, the concept of lifelong singlehood is defined differently by the
demographic and gerontological literature and this has implications on the results. Firstly, the
demographic literature defines a lifelong single as someone who never experienced a coresidential
relationship by the age of 40 (Bellani et al., 2017). This is problematic since those without
coresidential experience are a heterogenous group encompassing a) those who never had any
intimate relationship and b) those who had only LAT relationships. Not distinguishing between
these two intimate relationship histories might paint a blurred picture about the characteristics and
the experiences of the lifelong singles. Secondly, the gerontological literature considers a lifelong
single someone who is never married (and childless) over the age of 60 (Baumbusch, 2004; Timonen
and Doyle, 2013) or someone who is not remarried over the age of 60 (Band-Winterstein and
Manchik-Rimon, 2014). This definition has led gerontologists to explain the reasons people ascribe
for not (re)marrying at a later stage in life. However, these people are not lifelong singles since they
had previous intimate coresidential and/or non-coresidential (LAT) relationships (Baumbusch,
2004; Timonen and Doyle, 2013; Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014).
This study aims to fill in the conceptual gaps on singlehood contributing to the literature with a
clearer definition of both concepts -lifelong singlehood and singlehood - providing a better-quality
picture about these individuals. This chapter defines being single as being unpartnered. A lifelong
single is defined as someone unpartnered who never had any previous intimate relationship in their
adulthood. This person can live alone or in a multiple-person household. This person can be
childless but not necessarily. Some lifelong singles are lone parents or could have children who are
the result of adoption, artificially insemination or forced sex. This definition suggests that these
unpartnered individuals had never had any intimate coresidential or LAT relationship experience.
This definition is a unique contribution to the literature and it is based on rich data on retrospective
relationships history which gives the opportunity to move beyond the general categories of marital
status. The group of those unpartnered with no past intimate relationship or those who never had
a coresidential relationship but had only LAT relationships has not received any attention in the
demographic literature.
3
It is important to distinguish between past intimate relationship experiences of those unpartnered.
Most of the demographic literature on the link between marital status and well-being has
emphasised the poor well-being of those single (divorced, separated, never married) compared to
those married (Marks, 1996; Soons and Liefbroer, 2008; Wright and Brown, 2017; Verbakel, 2012;
Perelli-Harris et al., 2018). Few studies have compared the well-being of those single ever married
to those never married. These studies have focused on the simple marital status showing that those
divorced and widowed have worse psychological well-being than those never married in midlife
(US:Pearlin and Johnson, 1977; Norway:Reneflot and Mamelund, 2011) and at later life stages (in
US: Pudrovska et al., 2006). These conclusions are based on old data and descriptive results (Pearlin
and Johnson, 1977), on non-representative data (Pudrovska et al., 2006) and on a sample of people
who could have a LAT partner (Pudrovska et al., 2006; Pearlin and Johnson, 1977; Norway:Reneflot
and Mamelund, 2011). Nonetheless, the literature on marital status and well-being underlines the
negative effects of a relationship break-up on one’s well-being. To date, no study has examined the
past intimate relationships of those single and their well-being given the heterogeneity in the pool
of single people. Among single people lifelong singles can be very different than those ever
partnered in aspects of well-being.
Recent evidence indicates that singles who had a coresidential relationship compared to those who
never had one are more likely to favour being in a relationship rather than being single (in the
Netherlands: Poortman and Liefbroer, 2010). Furthermore, in general, singles want to be in a
relationship rather than staying single (in the Netherlands: Poortman and Liefbroer, 2010). These
studies stress the desire to be (re)partnered. The need to belong is a natural drive in forming and
maintaining meaningful social connections which, in turn, sustain people’s well-being (Baumeister
and Leary, 1995). An intimate partner fulfils not only the need to belong but also the needs for
intimacy and approval. A partner provides sexual intimacy, social and emotional support all of which
are related to increased levels of well-being. This dynamic is embedded within the Western ideology
of marriage and family which cultivates the convention that being in a long-term romantic
relationship and a parent are the most important and meaningful social relationships (DePaulo and
Morris, 2005a; Day et al., 2011).
However, this ideology is criticised by sociologists and psychologists whose research based on
qualitative methods informs that singlehood is actually constructed around a positive identity
(Stein, 1975; Loewenstein et al., 1981; DePaulo and Morris, 2005a; Budgeon, 2008). This literature
highlights the importance of social networks in replacing the absence of an intimate partner, in
terms of social support, social belonging and emotional bond. These studies also suggest that not
everyone has the desire to repartner. Evidence shows that the singles are happier and feel higher
4
personal empowerment compared to when they had an intimate LAT or coresidential partner
(Stein, 1975; Budgeon, 2008), indicating that remaining single is a choice. Singlehood is valued even
among those for whom singlehood was a result of some external circumstances, some studies
indicating that people had ‘fallen in love’ with the independence and freedom a single lifestyle
offers (Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014; Sharp and Ganong, 2007). Cagan (2004) coins
the term ‘quirkyalone’ to define this new increasing trend of single people who enjoy being single,
accepting their relationship status while finding happiness, fulfilment and confidence within
themselves. Although quirkyalones value friendship highly, they are not antilove – they would
cherish a romantic relationship if it comes. Social scientists, who study single people, have started
to be active on social media underlying the advantages of being single (DePaulo, 2019a). Facebook
groups such as the ‘Community of Single People’ or blogs such as ‘Single at Heart’, created by
DePaulo (DePaulo, 2019b) aim to facilitate the interaction among single people, helping in creating
a social identity of singlehood. Hence, the satisfaction with being single is at the core of these social
media activities, which shed positive light on being single in today’s society where the ideology of
being in a (married) relationship and having children is perpetuated as the key to having a fulfilled
life (DePaulo and Morris, 2006; Budgeon, 2008).
Despite the qualitative literature identifying that singlehood is constructed as a positive image, the
psychological studies warn about the negative stereotype and the social stigma attached to
singlehood. Single people are stigmatized and negatively stereotyped compared to partnered
people: singles are perceived as being more immature, lonely, miserable, self-centred as well as
less happy, attractive, sociable, warm and caring (DePaulo and Morris, 2005a; DePaulo and Morris,
2005b; DePaulo and Morris, 2006; Greitemeyer, 2009; Slonim et al., 2015). The negative attitudes
are even stronger as single people become older (40 years old) (Hertel et al., 2007; Morris et al.,
2008). Discrimination against single people has been noted in the housing market too (Morris et al.,
2008). This is called singlism (DePaulo and Morris, 2006). The state laws usually offer more benefits
to married people such as tax breaks and a greater number of opportunities to get high quality care
and health insurance. Governments are making assumptions on family to provide care to old
generations but those who remained single throughout adulthood have no family to provide care
for them. Evidence from the UK warms about the potential socio-economic adversities that
childless men living alone in late mid-life, without any coresidential relationship, not owner-
occupier and lone mothers without house equity would face when entering subsequent life stages
(Demey et al., 2013). These individuals might be at risk to benefit from low individual pension
entitlements and the state needs to meet the care and financial needs of these people.
It is important to investigate how single people feel with their status of being single since both the
quantitative and the qualitative social science literature on the experiences of single people offer
5
mixed results. In this study, I use satisfaction with being single as an indicator of well-being. In other
words, satisfaction with being single indicates how people feel with their relationship status as
being single. To date, there are no studies comparing the satisfaction with being single of those
who had intimate coresidential or LAT relationship relative to those lifelong singles. It is not clear
what is associated with the satisfaction of being single and what is the role of past intimate
relationships. This study sheds light on the link between past intimate relationships and satisfaction
with being single in Germany. Germany is one of the countries with the highest share of one-person
household among those ages 30-50, together with Sweden and the Netherlands (Sandström and
Karlsson, 2019). The mean age of marriage for women increased from 25.9 years in 1990 to 31 years
in 2014 and for men it increased from 28.4 in 1990 to 33.7 years in 2014 (UNECE Statistical
Database, 2019). This suggests that more people are never married and living alone compared with
two decades ago. These never married people could have had at least one previous relationship
experience with a cohabiting partner or LAT partner. Recent research has noted the existence of
serial cohabitation (for West Germany) for a small proportion of people in their mid-thirties. It is
also possible that some of the single people to be without any intimate relationship at all. This study
also investigates the role of social network on satisfaction with being single among unpartnered
people in their mid-thirties.
Background
The stress/crisis theory
The stress/crisis theory underlines that marital status differences in well-being arise from the
economic, physical and emotional disorders together with concomitant network disruptions
related to relationship dissolution (Bloom et al., 1978; Booth and Amato, 1991). Firstly, a
coresidential break-up has been linked to economic distress, especially for women (Umberson et
al., 1992; Kalmijn and van Groenou, 2005). Among women, mothers with depended children
experience serious economic hardship (in US: Shapiro, 1996; in UK: Stack and Meredith, 2018).
Moving out, dividing a house or material possessions are other economic stressful outcomes of a
coresidential relationship. For example, following separation from a coresidential relationship,
individuals are likely to move to temporary accommodation, smaller dwellings, and dwellings of
lower quality (in UK: Feijten, 2005; Feijten and Ham, 2010) and this may reduce their well-being.
Conversely, the lifelong singles do not experience any of these economic stressful events which
result from a break-up since they never had a partner. Lifelong singles might instead be more used
to rely only on their economic resources. Similarly, those who had only LAT relationship do not
experience these economic hardships since they did not have a coresidential experience.
6
Secondly, research indicates that those who divorced are exposed to the loss of joint (marital) social
networks (Terhell et al., 2004; Kalmijn and van Groenou, 2005; McDermott et al., 2013). This may
be because people who were in a couple find fewer things in common with their coupled friends
and former friends take the side of one of the partners to provide support (Johnson and Campbell,
1988; Wallerstein et al., 2000; Terhell et al., 2004; McDermott et al., 2013). Additionally, newly
single divorced may be considered as a threat by their married friends who worry about mate
poaching (i.e. i.e. romantically attracting someone who is already in a relationship) (Schmitt et al.,
2004). Moreover, the loss of a spouse who had the social role of being the best friend for the other
partner (Grover and Helliwell, 2019) might reduce the latter’s well-being. However, the remaining
relationships with close or individual friends and kin appear to be intensified (Miller et al., 1998;
Greif and Deal, 2012). Therefore, some divorcees can experience network gains, particularly in the
long run (Kalmijn and van Groenou, 2005). Conversely, the lifelong single may enjoy continuous,
well-established friendships without going through the stress triggered by the social disrupture
associated with a break-up. To the best of my knowledge, there is no literature on the implications
of the dissolution of a LAT relationship on the social resources of the ex-partners. However, I
assume that those who had only LAT relationships could also experience the loss of the joint social
network and this, in turn, could reduce the satisfaction with being single.
Lastly, losing either a spouse, a cohabiting or a LAT partner is usually accompanied by stress,
sadness and anger (Mastekaasa, 1994; Sprecher et al., 1998; Sbarra and Emery, 2005; Rhoades et
al., 2011). There is also evidence that a break-up may reduce stress and could increase well-being,
especially for the initiators of the break-up who were not happy in the relationship (Sprecher, 1994;
Sprecher et al., 1998; Kamp Dush et al., 2008). Nonetheless, a relationship break-up generally leads
to decreased well-being (Perilloux and Buss, 2008) and is usually associated with difficulty adjusting
to the loss and ‘letting go’ (Mearns, 1991; Belu et al., 2016). This taps into the emotional turmoil of
a relationship dissolution on individuals’ well-being as the emotional and sexual intimacy,
companionship and emotional support are lost. Therefore, I assume that having had either only a
LAT or a coresidential past relationship is related to low well-being compared to lifelong singlehood.
In sum, the resource and stress/crises explanations lead to the expectation that the negative impact
of well-being may be stronger for those who had a LAT or/and coresidential relationships compared
to lifelong singles. Only one quantitative study investigated the differences in the experiences of
the single strain (an indicator measuring difficulties to be single in terms of intimacy, social life,
companionship and care) by marital status among unmarried people over 65 years old (Pudrovska
et al., 2006). The results indicate that those never divorced or widowed unmarried had a higher
single strain than never-marrieds. However, these results are based on a non-representative
sample where single people could have a LAT partner. Lifelong singlehood, as defined in this
chapter, may differ from those who ever had an intimate partner in terms of strains, resources and
7
social relationships. Since no spouse or partner existed to provide social support, companionship
and sexual intimacy the lifelong singles might generally be more self-reliant. However, those who
have not experienced an intimate relationship by mid-thirties might suffer more from the lack of
support, encouragement and security typically provided by a romantic partner (Baumeister and
Leary, 1995) and thus be more likely to report lower satisfaction with being single. Because it is not
clear how having a previous coresidential or LAT union compared to having been a lifelong single is
associated with satisfaction with being single, no explicit hypotheses are formulated.
The Life Course Framework
The life course theory is another theoretical framework used in this paper to explain the potential
negative outcome in the well-being of those who had past intimate relationships over being a
lifelong single. The life course framework assumes that past life events and transitions are related
to how people evaluate current situations. The life course framework stipulates that a transition
changes slowly one’s life course trajectory whereas an event causes an abrupt change in one’s life
course trajectory (Elder, 1994; Settersten and Mayer, 1997).
In this paper, I conceptualise past intimate relationships as part of life course experiences which
could impact the satisfaction with being single. I assume that the lifelong singles would be more
satisfied with being single since they have experienced neither a relationship transition (they were
always single) nor the sudden event of losing an intimate partner. In contrast, those unpartnered
who had been in either a LAT or a coresidential relationship experienced both the transition from
being in a relationship to being single and the event of losing their partner. These experiences might
be associated with low satisfaction with being single. This can be the case especially if people have
invested a lot in the relationship. The psychological literature explains that the sudden event of
losing a partner produces changes in one’s self-concept by reducing one’ self-concept clarity, which
causes emotional stress (Slotter et al., 2010). Partners overlap self-concepts by developing shared
friends and participating in joint social activities (Aron et al., 1991). Once a relationship is finished
people enter a process of redefining themselves without a partner. Usually, after a break-up people
feel confused and incomplete and need to redefine themselves alone, without their ex-partner,
which can be related to dissatisfaction with being single. Poortman and Liefbroer’s (2010)
emphasise that single individuals who had been in a coresidential relationship compared to those
single without coresidential experience expressed more positive attitudes towards being in a
relationship relative to being single. They explain that those with a past coresidential experience
may have become used to live with a partner and may have more problems being on their own.
Having experienced only LAT relationships might be no different than having no past intimate
relationships on satisfaction with being since LAT relationships are short-lived (Régnier-Loilier,
2016; Krapf, 2017), indicating that people did not have enough time to commit. Nonetheless, it can
be that having experienced only LAT relationships, especially if the individuals were happy,
8
committed or invested emotionally, is different than having been lifelong single. Therefore, those
who had only LAT relationships relative to having been lifelong single may be less satisfied with
being single since people might miss the intimacy they shared with a partner.
On the other hand, having experienced a relationship break-up where people were not happy in
the relationship may be related to higher satisfaction with being single compared to lifelong singles.
Studies underline that being involved in a low-quality romantic relationship provides more negative
(health) well-being outcomes than being single (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2008). People reported growth
after a relationship break-up, especially if they were unhappy in the relationship (Tashiro and
Frazier, 2003). One study shows that having had multiple coresidential relationships decreased the
chances to repartner compared to those who never had any coresidential relationship (in
Netherlands: Poortman, 2007). This results might suggest that single people with multiple
(coresidential) relationships might be happier with being single compared to those who never had
any (coresidential) relationship. Because it is not clear how having a previous coresidential or LAT
union compared to having been lifelong single is associated with satisfaction with being single, no
explicit hypotheses are formulated.
Pathways into singlehood: choice vs constraint
Pathways to singlehood and lifelong singlehood (generally defined in the existing literature as never
married or not remarried during adulthood) are driven by either people’s conscious choice or
external circumstances related to socio-economic or historical conditions present during one’s
young adulthood (Stein, 1975; Baumbusch, 2004; Budgeon, 2008; Timonen and Doyle, 2013; Band-
Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). The qualitative sociological literature has made the
division into ‘choice’ and ‘circumstance’ (sometimes refereed at as ‘constraint’) according to
people’s narratives of their marital history at the time of interview since they tended to talk either
of the unfortunate circumstances or the choices they had made to remain unmarried across their
adult lives (Timonen and Doyle, 2013).
Those who chose to be single generally evaluated that being in a relationship would have a negative
impact on achieving higher education (Stein, 1975), pursuing future career goals (Budgeon, 2008),
building friendships, organising a personal schedule and finances (Timonen and Doyle, 2013; Band-
Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014), and undergoing self-development as a relationship or
marriage would be too restrictive (Loewenstein et al., 1981; Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003;
Baumbusch, 2004; Budgeon, 2008). The personal fulfilment and self-empowerment experienced
after breaking-up from previous relationships are other reasons for which people want to stay
single (Loewenstein et al., 1981; Budgeon, 2008). Additional to these reasons, the freedom from
caregiving commitments was pregnant in the narratives of the old not married. Participants wanted
to avoid coping with the burden of an ageing partner, perceived as potentially sick, needy and
requiring much attention and sacrifice (Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014).
9
For others, singlehood was a result of external circumstances related either to family duties (the
obligation to provide extensive care for family) or to socio-economic constraints or historical
conditions during people’s young adulthood (Baumbusch, 2004; Timonen and Doyle, 2013; Band-
Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). The need for extensive care of family members limited the
opportunity to get employed, socialize and meet potential partners (Timonen and Doyle, 2013). The
historical conditions of the Great Depression and the Second World War, during women’s
adulthood, associated with poverty, unemployment, and a narrow pool of men contributed to be
single by circumstance (Baumbusch, 2004). Low earning power, migratory history from rural to
urban areas, the need to pay for secondary education, and precarious employment contributed to
Irish people born between 1930-1950 to remain unmarried during adulthood (Timonen and Doyle,
2013). In general, the gerontological literature shows that cohorts born before the Second World
War were powerfully constraint in their choice of marital status by their low socio-economic
conditions and cultural-normative factors prohibitive of marriage among those poor (Baumbusch,
2004; Timonen and Doyle, 2013).
Nonetheless, the common feature of all these studies is that although not originally a chosen
decision in every case, singlehood had become a way of life where singles value the independence
and freedom to manage their self-identity and to organise their social relationships, which are a
source of meaning and content to their life. Some authors discuss about ‘falling in love’ with
singlehood when analysing the narratives of those in old ages for whom singlehood was not the
result of a conscious choice during their adulthood but became comfortable with this status over
the years (Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). In response to uncertainty about their
relationship status and external pressure to have a relationship, some participants learnt to think
optimistically focusing on advantages of being single (Sharp and Ganong, 2007), altered their
expectations, and leant to value themselves as being single while ageing (Dalton, 1992; Davies,
2003). Although not explicitly stated in these studies, since singlehood was not a chosen status, the
advantages of being single in these people’s narratives might have been a process of rationalization
whereby people reduced their cognitive dissonances. A cognitive dissonance is the psychological
discomfort which arises from facts that reality contradicts people’s beliefs and ideals (Festinger,
1957). Therefore, to reduce their mental discomfort of having been single by circumstance old
people might have changed their attitude about singlehood during their life course.
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine in-depth who are the lifelong singles. However, in
light of this biography of choice or constraint I assume that in my sample the lifelong singles had
either chosen or had been constraint to have any intimate relationship. Irrespective of the
pathways to lifelong singlehood, I consider that lifelong singles might have higher satisfaction with
being single compared to those who had an intimate relationship because they either never wanted
a partner or they had accepted their relationship status learning to be happy without a partner.
10
Quirkyalone, single at heart or asexual?
Some qualitative studies underline that even if singleness was constructed as a positive identity
through repertoires of choice, independence, self-development, some women talked about their
desire to have an intimate relationship (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003; Sharp and Ganong, 2007;
Budgeon, 2008), the lack of a sexual partner being mentioned as disadvantage of singlehood
(Loewenstein et al., 1981; Baumbusch, 2004). These results echo Cagan’s argument (2004) that
being single does not mean a rejection of embracing an intimate relationship if this would come.
‘Quirkyalone’ is a concept put forward by Cagan (2004) to define this new increasing trend of single
people who enjoy being single, accepting their relationship status while finding happiness,
fulfilment and confidence within themselves. Quirkyalones value friendship highly, do not consider
singleness as a social disease and are not antilove – they would cherish a romantic relationship if it
comes. Quirkyalone is an organised grass-roots movement established by online communities who
are also meeting offline at various meetings and events. The discussions on social media together
with the offline meetings help empower and build connections among single people encouraging
the idea that being single is not inferior to being in a relationship and being in a relationship is not
always the definition of happiness. The emotional bonds created online and offline help to sustain
this movement through the building of solidarity within those single and of social identity in order
to support even the most marginalised ones. Hence, the satisfaction with being single is at the core
of this movement which sheds positive light on being single in today’s society where the ideology
of being in a (married) relationship and having children is perpetuated as the key to having a fulfilled
life (DePaulo and Morris, 2006; Budgeon, 2008). Single people can meet up and interact with other
single people on Facebook pages such as ‘The Community of Single People’ created by social
scholars who study the experiences of single people (DePaulo, 2019b). ‘Single at heart’ is a concept
coined by DePaulo to express living ‘the most meaningful and authentic life’ as being happily single.
DePaulo’s a blog with the same name aims to shift the negative connotation about single people
towards a more positive social representation of singlehood so as single people have a more
collective sense of themselves.
It is possible that some of these singles by choice to be asexual (not having sexual attraction to a
partner of either sex) (Bogaert, 2004; Brotto et al., 2010). Recent research shows that some of the
asexual individuals might also be aromantic (not having romantic attraction) or romantic
(experiencing romantic attraction, creating emotional bond with a partner) (Van Houdenhove et
al., 2015). When applied to lifelong singles these distinctions suggest that some of them might have
a significant other for whom they have romantic feelings but they have low frequency or no sexual
intercourses at all (romantic asexuals). At the same time, some other lifelong singles may not be
interested to have either sexual intercourses or to develop romantic feelings for someone
(aromantic asexuals). Research shows that the ideal relationship among aromantic asexuals is
11
characterised as friendship-like (Scherrer, 2008) while romantic asexual individuals indicated an
interest in sexual intimacy such as kissing or hugging while seeking more emotional intimacy
(Dawson et al., 2016). It may be that for some singles, emotional intimacy is fulfilled in the role of
friends and family and these people might not need a partner.
The social networks and well-being of those single
In this paper, social network is used interchangeably with social support, both terms suggesting
sources of support (emotional, economic, instrumental) and social integration (Chappell, 1991;
Amati et al., 2018). Valuing friends and family and receiving support from them are found to
increase the satisfaction with life, happiness and self-rated health (Chopik, 2017; Nicolaisen and
Thorsen, 2017; Amati et al., 2018). First, social networks are important in affirming an individual’s
sense of self (Hartup and Stevens, 1997), satisfy the basic human need for belongingness and are a
source of positive affirmation (Anthony and McCabe, 2015). For single people, friends can be a
source of identity building, especially after termination a relationship (Budgeon, 2008). Secondly,
the presence of social relationship contributes to an individual mental and physical health (Putnam
2000). For example, exercising or keeping a diet with a friend (Rackow et al., 2015; Karfopoulou et
al., 2016) increases the chances of practising a continuously healthy lifestyle. Thirdly, social
relationships form a resource pool for an individual. Friends can provide resources such as
information, company (personal relationships, time spend together being involved in amusement
activities, meals), emotional (love, advice and support about various problems) and instrumental
support (economic help, helping with groceries, house-keeping) (Turner et al., 1971; Törnblom and
Fredholm, 1984; Gifford and Cave, 2012). In addition to the interaction with friends and family,
interacting with people who are less emotionally close to us (weaker ties, such as coffee barista or
yoga classmate) is shown to increase subjective well-being as well (Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014).
In their qualitative studies on singlehood, scholars have noted that friendships emerged as being
more important compared to an intimate partner and are central to single’s personal networks
(Loewenstein et al., 1981; Zajicek and Koski, 2003; Simpson, 2006; Budgeon, 2008). These studies
confirm the results of the literature on the link between social networks and well-being, underlining
that friends are a source of social and emotional support (Stein, 1975; Budgeon, 2008). The time
spent with friends and the social activities where singles create interpersonal bonding with others
are emotional investments for single people (Loewenstein et al., 1971). Involvement in their own
extended family or in that of their friends is a repeated aspect also in the lifestyle of the single (and
childless) individuals at old ages (in Dublin area: Timonen and Doyle, 2013; in Israel: Band-
Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). Nonetheless, some studies underscore the social isolation
among single women in mid and later life stages who are avoided by their partnered friends
because the latter are afraid of mate poaching (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003). Some other studies
expressed the dissatisfaction of single women between 28-34 years old seeing their social circle
12
shirking by one of the friends marrying and spending less time with them (Sharp and Ganong, 2011).
At the same time, family, some friends and co-workers have been identified as a source of stress
for singles when they feel stigmatised. Research has noted that sometimes parents can favour the
married sibling leaving the single one to feel displaced in their families or feeling invisible in the
family (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003; Sharp and Ganong, 2011).
Gender differences in the consequences of past relationships on well-being
The demographic literature on the gender differences of past relationships on well-being has mainly
investigated the outcomes of divorce. The evidence shows that men compared to women
experienced larger health declines and lower subjective well-being (US: Stack and Eshleman, 1998;
Germany: Andreß and Bröckel, 2007; US: Shor et al., 2012), greater feelings of loneliness and social
isolation (in Netherlands: Dykstra and Fokkema, 2007), and larger increases in mortality following
separation (Shor et al., 2012). One explanation for these differences is that men benefit more from
marriage than women in terms of health, social and emotional support. A second explanation is
related to behavioural differences in the pre-divorce period. Studies show that women are more
likely to initiate the divorce after they unsuccessfully tried to make their relationships work (Brinig
and Allen, 2000; Kalmijn and Poortman, 2006). The decision to divorce might take men by surprise
and they might become more distress when the marriage falls apart. In contrast, women who
initiate divorce might already feel the relief of breaking-up from an unsatisfying relationship. These
results suggest that men’s and women’s health and subjective-well-being may suffer on different
time scales: women may suffer psychological distress during marriage and before the divorce
whereas men suffer after the marriage terminates and possibly more intense.
Nonetheless, some other studies have suggested the opposite pattern (US: Simon and Marcussen,
1999) and others have found no gender differences (Norway: Mastekaasa, 1994; Canada:
Strohschein et al., 2005; US: Amato and Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Germany: Leopold, 2018).
Recent evidence from Germany explains that the gender differences in life satisfaction disappear
after a couple of years after divorce, suggesting that the adverse effect of divorce on men’s life
satisfaction is short-lived (Leopold, 2018). The psychological literature which investigated the
effects of a break-up from a LAT relationship offers mixed evidence as well. Some American studies
show that women experience more positive emotions than men after a break-up (Sprecher, 1994;
Choo et al., 1996; Sprecher et al., 1998) but other evidence underlines the opposite (Mearns, 1991;
Perilloux and Buss, 2008). Given the contradicting results of the literature no gender differences
are specifically hypnotized in this chapter.
Drawing from the gaps in literature on singlehood, this paper asks:
1) Are there any differences in the mean satisfaction with being single between the lifelong singles
and those who either had a past intimate coresidential or LAT relationship, net of other control
variables?
13
2) How are the satisfaction and frequency with social networks of those unpartnered in mid-
thirties associated with satisfaction with being single, net of past intimate relationship(s) and
other control variables?
3) Is gender moderating the association between past intimate relationships on satisfaction with
being single?
Data and methods
Data and analytical sample
The data are taken from wave 1 (collected in 2008/2009) of the German Family Panel pairfam (Panel
Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics), release 9.1 (Brüderl et al., 2018a), a
nationwide random sample of German respondents born in 1971-1973, 1981-1983 and 1991-1993.
The survey began in 2008 with a representative sample of 12,403 focal participants (referred to as
anchors) who are followed annually. Pairfam is an ongoing multi-disciplinary, longitudinal study
focused on intimate unions, parenthood and family development.
In Wave 1 (2008/2009) there are 695 unpartnered individuals in the birth cohort 1971-1973. Due
to about 1% of non-responses in both the dependent and some independent variables, the
analytical sample drops to 684 unpartnered individuals. These unpartnered people are aged
between 35 and 38 years old. In this paper lifelong singlehood refers to those aged 35-38 years who
never experienced any important intimate relationship. Pairfam asks the respondents to reflect on
all the past important relationships to them since they were 14 years old. An important relationship
is defined as a relationship that lasted longer than 6 months, or that in which the respondent lived
with their partner, or that which led to the birth of a child, or that which was important for the
respondent for other reasons. Based on these relationship histories, I derived a variable labelled as
‘past intimate relationships(s)’. Parifam allows a researcher to distinguish those who had only past
LAT relationships and those who never had any intimate past relationship. By distinguishing a LAT
relationship from a coresidential relationship is important because LAT relationships are different
than coresidential relationships: the first are considered a stage in union development, especially
among the never married, are shorter and involve little committed compared to coresidential
relationships (Régnier-Loilier, 2016; van der Wiel et al., 2018).
The analytical sample is aged between 35-38 years old and the definition of lifelong singlehood
does not match the exact age composition in the definition of lifelong singlehood in demography
(i.e. study those who never had a coresidential relationship by the age of 40). It is possible that a
few of them who had not yet had an intimate relationship might have one by the age of 40.
However, I consider that most people will have had an intimate relationship by the age 35.
14
Therefore, I do not think there will be many differences in the composition of past intimate
relationships between someone aged 35, the youngest age in my sample, and someone aged 40.
It is important to note that the sample contains unpartnered individuals who would prefer an
opposite-sex partner (632), a same-sex partner (24), who are unsure about the sex of their
prospective partner (15) and who do not want to answer (13). As the preferred sex of a
prospective partner may not define sexual orientation I included everyone in the sample of the
unpartnered. As Pairfam does not have a variable measuring the sexual orientation identity of the
respondents, I consider those who do not know, do not answer or those who would prefer a
same-sex partner as broadly non-heterosexuals rather than homosexuals.
I run ordinary least square regression models (OLS) on satisfaction with being single.
Dependent variable
The dependent variable in this study is satisfaction with being single. The term satisfaction with
being single is used interchangeably with the terms satisfaction with relationship status and
subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is a general construct which encompasses the affective
and cognitive evaluation of life (Diener et al., 1999). Satisfaction with being single is one indicator
of the subjective well-being that indicates how people feel with their relationship status as being
single.
This variable is operationalized in parifam by asking those unpartnered: ‘You stated that you are
not in a relationship at the moment. How satisfied are you with your situation as single?’. The
variable is measured on an 11-point scale, where 0 is ‘Very dissatisfied’ and 10 ‘Very satisfied’. Out
of the initial sample of 695 unpartnered people in wave 1, 1.3% of the sample did not want to
answer or did not know what their satisfaction with being single is (9 item non-responses). These
item non-responses are deleted.
Independent variables
Past intimate relationships
The main independent variable is past intimate relationship(s) with categories: no past intimate
relationship, past LAT relationships, past coresidential relationships and no information about past
relationship(s). Those with no past intimate relationship are the lifelong singles. The past LAT
relationship refers to those past relationships with a LAT partner only. The past coresidential
relationships refer to those relationships with a coresident partner. Those who provided no
information about past intimate relationships did not want to mention the name or sex of any past
intimate partners. It may be that these people are shy and did not want to acknowledge that they
had no intimate relationship at all. It may also be that they had only short-lived sexual relationships
that could not be minimized as experience by assigning them in the category ‘no past intimate
15
relationship’ but neither in the category ‘past LAT relationships’ since those partners might not have
been important enough to be considered as dating partners.
Social networks
Social networks are measured as satisfaction with friends and social contacts, and the frequency of
contacting biological parents. Respondents had to rate on a scale from 0 (Very dissatisfied) to 10
(Very satisfied) how satisfied are they with different domains in life. Satisfaction with friends and
social contacts was one of them.
The frequency of contacting biological parents is a variable composed of two other variables:
frequency of contacting biological mother and frequency of contacting biological father. Pairfam
asks the respondents ‘And how often are you in contact with your biological mother, adding up all
visits, letters, phone calls, etc.’ The same question is asked for a biological dad.
I intersected these two variables to create one single variable measuring the frequency of
contacting biological parents with the following categories ‘At least once per week’, ‘At least once
a month’, Several times per year or never’, and ‘Both parents died’. There was only 1 person who
refused to answer (‘No answer’) at both variables measuring frequency of contacting biological
mother and father and this person was deleted from the initial sample of those unpartnered (695
unpartnered individuals).
Control variables
Among the control variables, I included gender, educational attainment, employment status,
religiosity, household composition, self-rated health status and country of birth. These variables
have been used in investigating the correlates of lifelong singlehood in the existent demographic
studies (Bellani et al., 2017; Dykstra and Poortman, 2010; Wiik and Dommermuth, 2014) and in
studies which looked at the effect of divorce and subjective well-being (Booth and Amato, 1991;
Dush and Amato, 2005).
The education variable is based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 97)
and is divided into 3 categories. The category “low education” includes all respondents who have
no or lower secondary school degrees, “medium education” refers to upper secondary and post-
secondary (but non-tertiary) education. Those in the “high education” category had a university or
college degree or had earned a doctorate. Rather than deleting those with incomplete data at
education (6 people which signifies 0.9% from the sample) I assigned them into having at least low
educational attainment not to reduce further the sample size.
The employment status is a dummy variable indicating if the respondent is employed. The
household composition has the categories a) living alone b) living with parents or with others (other
16
relatives or siblings, friends, housemates) c) living with children only d) not clear with whom but
not alone. Because a few of these unpartnered people live with siblings, friends or housemates only
I collapsed this category with living with parents or other relatives. The aim of including this variable
is to test the differences in the satisfaction with being single between those living alone and those
living with parents (or others) or those living with children. Self-rated health during the past 4 weeks
reads in pairfam ‘How would you describe your health status during the past 4 weeks?’ and it is
measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ‘Bad’ 2 ‘Not so good’ 3 ‘Satisfactory’ 4’Good to 5 ‘Very
good’. I collapsed the first two categories into one category indicating ‘poor’ health and the last
two categories into one indicating ‘good’ health. Therefore, the self-rated health has 3 categories,
poor, satisfactory and good. The country of birth of the respondent is included to control for the
potential differences in satisfaction with being single between those born in The Federal Republic
of Germany (West Germany) and in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). The cohorts
born after 1950 have a different family behaviour pattern in the two parts of the country
(Kreyenfeld and Konietzka, 2017) due to different socio-political regimes that vehiculated distinct
family values. The variable has the categories ‘East Germany’ ‘West Germany’ and ‘Other’ being a
proxy also for ethnicity as people born in another country are likely to be immigrants.
Model building strategy involves 3 main steps: Model 1 contains only the effect of the past
intimate relationships and the control variables, Model 2 adds to Model 1 the satisfaction with
friends and social contacts, Model 3 adds to Model 2 the frequency of contacting the biological
parents. Model 3 is the full model where all the main independent variables and the controls are
added. Model 4 contains an additional interaction effect between past intimate relationship and
gender. Despite that the overall effect is not statistically significant the model, the results are
shown as this Model 4 answers to one of the main research questions of this chapter.
Results
Descriptive results
Table 1 below shows the distribution of satisfaction with being single, past intimate relationship(s),
social network and control variables among those unpartnered in the birth cohort 1971-1973 at the
moment of the interview (wave 1). The distribution is shown for the full sample as well as within
each gender. Weighted percentages and means, as well as unweighted cases, are presented. Table
3 in Appendix shows the distribution of both satisfaction with being single and social networks by
past intimate relationship(s). Table 4 in Appendix shows the distribution of the demographic and
socio-economic control variables by past intimate relationship(s).
[Table 1 about here]
17
We see that most of those unpartnered aged 35-38 have a past coresidential relationship (46.7%),
followed by those who had a past LAT relationship (27.6%). The lifelong single composes 18.5% of
the sample. This indicates that the lifelong singles are not a negligible proportion. The mean of the
satisfaction with being single is 6.01, suggesting a rather medium satisfaction. Among the social
network variables, the mean of satisfaction with friends and social contacts is 7.37. Most of the
sample contact their parents at least once a week (79.2%). This points to the fact that the
unpartnered in their mid-thirties benefit from a rather good quality and frequent social support.
Most of the unpartnered people have medium education (57.4%, are employed (72.6%), without
religious background (64.4%), live alone (63.6%), their self-rated health in the past 4 weeks has
been good (59%), and were born in East Germany (70.8%).
In terms of gender, it is interesting to note that more males than females who are unpartnered are
lifelong single (26.4% vs 8.1%) and had a LAT relationship only (30% vs. 24.4%). However, more
unpartnered females than males had a coresidential relationship (61.5 % vs 35.4%). This result is in
line with Raab and Struffolino’s (2019) study on the relationship trajectories to childlessness in
Germany. They show that childless men are more likely than women to be in the single cluster until
the age of 40 (especially if high educated) while women were more often married.
Looking at Table 3 and 4 from Appendix, the highest mean for the satisfaction with being single
variable is among those who did not provide information about past intimate relationships (6.61)
and among those lifelong single (6.24), followed by those who had LAT relationships (5.96) and
those with past coresidential relationships (5.86). This already suggests that the lifelong singles are
not miserable. The highest mean of satisfaction with friends and social contacts is among those who
did not provide information about past intimate relationships (7.86), followed by those who had
only LAT relationships (7.50) and those who had past coresidential relationships (7.50). The lowest
mean of satisfaction with friends and social contacts is among lifelong singles (6.98). Most
respondents within each past intimate relationship(s) category contact their biological parents at
least once a week. Among lifelong singles and those who had past LAT relationships there are more
males than females (lifelong singlehood: 81.1% vs. 18.9%, for past LAT relationships: 61.8% vs.
38.2%). Among those with past coresidential relationships there are more females than males
(56.9% vs. 43.1%). Also, more males than females do not provide information about past intimate
relationships (64% vs. 36%). Among lifelong single, most of them have medium educational
attainment, are employed, have no religious background, live alone and have good health and are
born in East Germany.
18
Multivariate results
Table 2 presents the OLS regression models on satisfaction with being single. The results are
presented as unstandardized coefficients. Model 1 has only the past intimate relationship(s). Model
2 adds to model 1 satisfaction with friends and social contacts, and Model 3 adds to Model 2 the
frequency of contacting biological parents and it is the full model. For the full model, I tested if the
effect of past intimate relationship(s) on satisfaction with being single differs by gender via an
interaction effect between past intimate relationship and gender. These results are presented in
Model 4.
[Table 2 about here]
Considering Model 1, which includes only past intimate relationship(s) and the covariates, there is
no significant association between past intimate relationship(s) and satisfaction with being single.
Unpartnered females compared their counterpart males are more likely to be satisfied with being
single. The unpartnered with poor or satisfactory self-rated health are less likely to be satisfied with
being single compared to those with good self-rated health. People born in another country than
East Germany are more likely to be less satisfied with being single. As this variable is a broad proxy
for immigration status the result may be related to the difficulties to find a partner in mid-thirties
for those with a different ethnic background.
Model 2 adds to Model 1 satisfaction with friends. Controlling for friends, the difference between
those who had either a LAT or coresidential relationship and the lifelong singles becomes
significant. Firstly, those who had the experience of an intimate relationship relative to the lifelong
singles are less likely to be satisfied being single. Secondly, as more satisfied unpartnered people
are with their friends as more satisfied they are with being single. Thirdly, even if the coefficients
between Model 1 and 2 do not change much, there appears to be a suppressor effect
1
of this third
variable, satisfaction with being single on past intimate relationship(s). This suggests on one hand,
that people who are satisfied with their friends are more satisfied with being single (seen in the
bivariate relationship in Table 5, Appendix and in Model 2). On the other hand, those who had past
intimate relationships are generally more satisfied with their friends compared to lifelong singles
(this is seen in the bivariate relationship shown in Appendix, Table 3). This, in turn, explains why
1
‘(…) a situation in which the magnitude of the relationship between an independent variable and a
dependent variable becomes larger when a third variable is included indicate suppression’ (MacKinnon et
al., 2000, p. 3)
19
having controlled for satisfaction with friends, the past coresidential and LAT relationships have a
stronger effect on satisfaction with being single. The results suggest that lifelong singles might be a
select group of people who, on one hand, might be shy or introvert having a hard time making
friends or, on the other hand, are not that happy with the quality of their friends, and this, may hint
at the composition of their friends. For example, they might have more married friends.
In Model 2, gender is still an important indicator of satisfaction with being single, with females being
more satisfied with their relationship status than men. The statistically significant difference
between a poor and good self-rated health disappears, leaving those with a satisfactory health less
satisfied with being single compared to those with good health. This model shows that past intimate
relationships and satisfaction with friends are important indicators in explaining satisfaction with
being single.
Model 3 adds to Model 2 the frequency of contacting parents, as the last social network variable.
This is the full model on which conclusions and discussion are formed. In this model, those with a
past LAT or coresidential relationship compared to those lifelong singles are still less likely to be
satisfied with being single. There are no big differences between Model 2 and Model 3 with respect
to the size, direction and significance of the coefficients. Satisfaction with friends remains an
important indicator in the association with satisfaction with being single. Contacting parents at least
once a month compared to at least once a week is associated with increased satisfaction with being
single. Contacting parents less frequently, such as several times per year or never compared to at
least once a week decreases satisfaction with being single. Even if this last difference is not
statistically significant, this variable shows that overall being in contact with parents is important
for how the unpartnered assess their satisfaction with being single. Among control variables,
females are more likely to be satisfied being single than men. Those with high educational
attainment are less satisfied with being single compared to those with low educational attainment.
It could be that these high educated singles have the socio-economic resources to live a happy life,
affording to travel and engage various social activities, but they are unsatisfied of doing them
without a partner. Having a satisfactory self-rated health compared to a good self-rated health and
being born in another country compared to East Germany are associated with less satisfaction of
being single.
Model 4 shows the interaction effect between gender and past intimate relationship(s) on
satisfaction with being single. The model shows that there are no statistically significant differences
between the past intimate relationship(s) of males and females and satisfaction with being single.
However, males with a past LAT or coresidential relationship relative to those lifelong singles are
less satisfied with being single. In other words, for men, but not for women, being a lifelong single
20
suggests they are more satisfied with remaining single. It may be that the lifelong single men do
not need a partner since they have accumulated during their adulthood the economic, social and
emotional resources that a partner had brought to those ever partnered. Because the ever
partnered had experienced these pooled resources they might miss these benefits an intimate
relationship once offered, and, as a result, are more dissatisfied being single. Nonetheless, this
result must be interpreted with caution since the overall Wald test for the interaction effect is not
significant, suggesting that the effect of past intimate relationship(s) on satisfaction with being
single does not differ by gender.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study analysed how past intimate relationship(s) and social networks of those single in mid-
thirties are associated with satisfaction with being single. The contributions of this study to the
literature on singlehood are that a) it defines singlehood and lifelong singlehood in terms of present
or past intimate relationship(s) based on unique data b) moving beyond the simple marital status
providing a more nuanced picture on the link between past intimate relationships and satisfaction
with being single. Additionally, it c) employs an interdisciplinary approach to explain, on one hand,
the differences in satisfaction with being single between the lifelong singles and singles who had
ever past intimate relationship and, on the other hand, how social networks of these unpartnered
individuals are related to satisfaction with being single. Theories and concepts from sociology and
psychology are used to interpret the results.
Those without any past intimate relationship and those with past LAT relationships have been
overlooked in the existing research which grouped them together with those with past coresidential
relationships to inaccurately define ‘lifelong singlehood’ (Bellani et al., 2017). Using rich data from
the Germany Family Panel (pairfam) on intimate relationship histories, this is the first study which
defines and identifies the lifelong singlehood as those single without any past intimate relationship.
Moreover, this study distinguishes those single with past LAT relationships from those with
coresidential relationships offering a more detailed picture of the role of different relationship
types on satisfaction with being single. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first
study which defines being single as being unpartnered. Other studies defined ‘singlehood’ as not
being in a coresidential relationship, never married, living without a partner or living alone,
capturing individuals who might actually have a LAT partner. The results show that lifelong singles
do not feel miserable despite the stereotype vehiculating in the society that never married singles
are sad, cold, less warm than those partnered (DePaulo and Morris, 2006; Hertel et al., 2007;
Greitemeyer, 2009), the social stigma attached to singlehood (Zajicek and Koski, 2003; Sharp and
Ganong, 2011), which can take even a legal form (Morris et al., 2008 DePaulo and Morris, 2006;
DePaulo and Morris, 2005a).
21
Firstly, most of the Germans unpartnered between 35-38 years old had past coresidential
relationships, followed by those who had past LAT relationships only, and those who are lifelong
singles. This suggests that while most of these adults had experienced an intimate relationship
(46.7%), the proportion of lifelong singles is not negligible either, 18.5% of the singles having no
past intimate relationship experience. The mean of satisfaction with being single among these
singles is neither small nor high (6.01). Among social network variables, the mean with satisfaction
with friends and social contacts is fairly high (7.37) with most of these unpartnered contact their
biological parents once a week. This indicates an overall strong social network. Slightly more
women than men are single. These single in mid-thirties have good socio-economic conditions,
most of them having at least medium education and are employed. It is important to note that
more men than women are lifelong single and a high proportion of these lifelong singles are
medium and high educated. This suggests that lifelong singlehood might be a more select group of
men high educated. More women than men had past coresidential experiences. This result is in line
with Raab and Struffolino’s (2019) study on the relationship trajectories to childlessness in
Germany. They show that childless men are more likely than women to be in the single cluster until
the age of 40, especially if high educated while women were more often married.
Secondly, the results show that those with past coresidential or LAT relationships are more
dissatisfied with being single compared to lifelong singles, net of all covariates. This result is
consistent with the strain/crisis theoretical framework which explains the adverse implications of a
break-up on the (newly) singles’ well-being compared to those continuously married (Booth and
Amato, 1991; Verbakel, 2012). By setting the benchmark to lifelong singlehood, this study suggests
that the strain/crisis model can also be applied to explain the lower satisfaction with being single
of those who had a past intimate relationship. Therefore, this study adds to those underlining the
sadness, stress and anger people feel when losing a spouse, a cohabiting or LAT partner
(Mastekaasa, 1994; Sprecher et al., 1998; Sbarra and Emery, 2005; Rhoades et al., 2011). It may be
that once people had experienced the pooled material and non-material resources with a partner,
which are associated with increased levels of well-being, they want to have that again. For example,
having experienced a pooled income to pay rent, the sexual and emotional intimacy with a partner
or having accessed a larger social network via a partner’s friends, might create the need to have
that in a new relationship. At the same time, this research points at the importance of a LAT
relationship break-up on one’s well-being. This result is in line with the psychological research
underlining the negative feelings people experience when breaking-up from a LAT partner, such as
feeling sad, lost, scared, experiencing low self-esteem and rumination (Perilloux and Buss, 2008;
Sprecher, 1994; Sprecher et al., 1998). Lifelong singles, on the other hand, have not experienced
any relationship break-up, and the emotional turmoil or stress associated with it, reason why they
might assess their singlehood as more satisfying than the those ever partnered.
22
Thirdly, this study also offers evidence that from a life course standpoint the event of losing a
partner and the transitions from being in a relationship to being single are painful experiences.
Since transitions change slowly one’s life course trajectory (Elder, 1994), people might have
difficulties accepting their new relationship status as single and might have a hard time of ‘letting
go’ of a partner (Mearns, 1991; Belu et al., 2016). The event of a break-up causes an abrupt change
in one’s life course trajectory (Elder, 1994). Psychologists discuss about how a break-up produces
changes in the structure of individuals’ self-concept (Aron et al., 1997; Slotter et al., 2010). Because
in a relationship people define aspects of the self through an ex- romantic partner, a break-up
leaves individuals with feeling incomplete and confused about whom they are in the absence of a
partner. This reduced self-concept clarity is associated with emotional disorder (Slotter et al., 2010).
The loss of the resources once shared with a partner and the change in the self-concept from ‘we’
to ‘I’ might be underlining mechanisms leading to a high dissatisfaction with being single among the
ever partnered.
Fourthly, this study suggests that lifelong singles might be a selected group of people, who might
be more self-reliant, self-sufficient and independent compared to those with past intimate
relationships. In terms of sexual orientation identity, they can even be asexual and might not need
sexual intimacy with a partner (Bogaert, 2004; Brotto et al., 2010). Recent research points to a
category of asexual individuals who are also aromatic, suggesting that this people develop neither
sexual attraction nor emotional attraction to a partner of either sex, finding emotional fulfilment
just in friends and family (Van Houdenhove et al., 2015). The higher satisfaction with being single
among lifelong singles compared to those who had intimate relationships might suggest that these
individuals have chosen to stay single. The qualitative literature points that individuals who have
chosen singlehood evaluated being in a relationship as too restrictive for them (Timonen and Doyle,
2013; Byrne, 2003; Budgeon, 2008). Benefits such as freedom to organise one’s personal schedule
and finances, to pursue higher education and future career goals, to build friendships with whom
they want, and not compromising to a partner were reasons of not choosing to be in a relationship.
The higher satisfaction of being single compared to that of those ever partner might also result
from a process of rationalization, where lifelong singles accepted their singlehood and learnt to
focus on the independence and benefits the single lifestyle brings (Dalton, 1992; Davies, 2003;
Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). Nonetheless, high proportion of the lifelong singles
are medium and high educated suggesting that these people have accumulated resources that
facilitate a single lifestyle, such as autonomy, self-reliance, economic independence.
At the same time, the results suggest that lifelong single might be a more selected group in terms
of personality traits compared to those who had intimate relationships. The lifelong singles have
the lowest mean of satisfaction with friends and social contacts compared to those who had
intimate relationships and they appear to be less socially integrated compared to those who had
23
an intimate relationship. Firstly, it may be that these people are more introverts or shy and face
difficulties in marking or keeping friends. This is suggested by the suppressor effect of satisfaction
with friends and social contacts on satisfaction with being single via past intimate relationships.
Secondly, these people are past an age when most people have started to marry according to the
mean age of marriage in Germany at the moment of the interview (30 years for females and 33
years for males in 2008 (UNECE Statistical Database, 2019). It may be that these lifelong singles
have started to ‘lose’ their single friends whom once they married spend less time with them (Sharp
and Ganong, 2011) and evaluate satisfaction with friends as low. A low satisfaction with friends and
social contact might also suggest that these lifelong singles are isolated from their partnered
friends, who are afraid of mate poaching, perhaps thinking that their lifelong single friend is
‘desperate’ to be in a relationship (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003).
Fifth, this study underlines the importance of friends and social contacts on one hand, and of the
family on the other hand for single’s well-being. The fact that a higher satisfaction with friends and
social contact is associated with a higher satisfaction of being single mirrors the discussion from the
qualitative studies about friends providing basic satisfactions of emotional intimacy in single’s life,
fulfilling their emotional need to belong (Budgeon, 2008). Spending time with friends and doing
activities together are not only emotional investments for singles (Loewenstein et. al., 1971,
Budgeon, 2008), but also sources of creating fulfilled and meaningful lives (Timonen and Doyle,
2013; Band-Winterstein and Manchik-Rimon, 2014). Friends help single people not to feel
marginalised in a world where personal fulfilment is defined as having a long-term relationship with
an intimate partner (DePaulo and Morris, 2005a). Studies have underlined the personal growth and
fulfilment the singles experience as they attend group meetings (Stein, 1975) and are involved in
various social activities with friends (Loewenstein et. al., 1971). Additionally, being in contact with
family increases satisfaction with being single. However, higher levels of satisfaction with being
single are associated with contacting biological parents once a month relative to once a week. This
may indicate a certain distance that singles keep from parents. It may be that as they age biological
parents pressure their single adult children to (re)partner (Sharp and Ganong, 2011). It may also be
that biological parents favour the married sibling as they proved that they ‘have grown up’ leaving
the single sibling to feel ‘invisible’ (Byrne, 2003). The social pressure to marry and parents’
discriminative behaviour towards the single adult child may be reasons to contact family less
frequent and this, in turn, to keep high the satisfaction with being single.
Lastly, this study shows no gender differences on satisfaction with being single by past intimate
relationships. This result is opposing those which present men as having a lower well-being than
women after separation (Andreß and Bröckel, 2007; Dykstra and Fokkema, 2007; Shor et al., 2012).
This study is more in line a more recent research conducted in Germany showing no gender
differences by marital status on subjective well-being (Leopold, 2018). It is interesting to note
24
however that men with past intimate relationships are more dissatisfied being single than those
lifelong single. These results may suggest that for men losing a partner is detrimental to their well-
being pointing at the same time to the benefits an intimate partner has for men’s life. In contrast
to the lifelong single men who might have accumulated material and non-material resources during
their adulthood and do not need a partner, the ever partnered might miss the pooled resources an
intimate relationship once offered, and, as a result, are more dissatisfied being single. Nonetheless,
this result should be interpreted with caution. Future research could replicate this result on a larger
sample.
All in all, this study points to the fact that lifelong singles are not miserable. Beyond all the potential
interpretations it may be that social media has a role the lifelong singles feeling satisfied with their
relationship status. Sociologists emphasise that in order for people to make sense of their lives and
create definitions of the self they must use concepts that are culturally shared (Gubruim and
Holstein, 1995). Online communities who organise grass-root movements to promote singlehood
as a positive identity, such as quirkyalone, may have started to change people’s mindsets by
stripping off the social stigma attached to singlehood. Single people who do not see singlehood as
a social disease and decided to stay single until they meet the right person while enjoying their
friends do have a quirkyalone community. Those who live ‘the most meaningful and authentic life’
as being single and perhaps willing to remain single find a sense of community by joining Facebook
pages such as The Community of Single People or by signing up on the blog Single at Heart created
by Bella de Paulo, a social scientist who is researching singles lifestyles. These online communities
give a sense of empowerment and identity to those unpartnered who have been single either by
choice or circumstance encouraging them at the same time to embrace their singlehood and find
fulfilment within themselves.
25
Bibliography
Amati, V., Meggiolaro, S., Rivellini, G., Zaccarin, S. (2018) Social relations and life satisfaction: the
role of friends. Genus. 74(1).
Amato, P.R., Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007) A Comparison of High- and Low-Distress Marriages
That End in Divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family. 69(3), 621–638.
Andreß, H.-J., Bröckel, M. (2007) Income and Life Satisfaction After Marital Disruption in
Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family. 69(2), 500–512.
Anthony, A.K., McCabe, J. (2015) Friendship Talk as Identity Work: Defining the Self Through
Friend Relationships. Symbolic Interaction. 38(1), 64–82.
Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M., Nelson, G. (1991) Close relationships as including other in the self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60(2), 241–253.
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E.N., Vallone, R.D., Bator, R.J. (1997) The experimental generation of
interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 23(4), 363–377.
Band-Winterstein, T., Manchik-Rimon, C. (2014) The Experience of Being an Old Never-Married
Single: A Life Course Perspective. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development.
78(4), 379–401.
Baumbusch, J.L. (2004) Unclaimed treasures:older women’s reflections on lifelong singlehood.
Journal of Women & Aging. 16(1–2), 105–121.
Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 117(3), 497–529.
Bellani, D., Esping-Andersen, G., Nedoluzhko, L. (2017) Never partnered: A multilevel analysis of
lifelong singlehood. Demographic Research. 37(4), 53–100.
Belu, C.F., Lee, B.H., O’Sullivan, L.F. (2016) It hurts to let you go: Characteristics of romantic
relationships, breakups and the aftermath among emerging adults. Journal of Relationships
Research. 7.
Bloom, B.L., Asher, S.J., White, S.W. (1978) Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and analysis.
Psychological Bulletin. 85(4), 867–894.
Bogaert, A.F. (2004) Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability
sample. Journal of Sex Research. 41(3), 279–287.
Booth, A., Amato, P. (1991) Divorce and psychological stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior. 32(4), 396–407.
Brinig, M.F., Allen, D.W. (2000) ‘These boots are made for walking’: why most divorce filers are
women. American Law and Economics Review. 2(1), 126–169.
Brotto, L.A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., Erskine, Y. (2010) Asexuality: a mixed-methods
approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 39(3), 599–618.
Brüderl, J., Drobnič, S., Hank, K., Huinink, Johannes, Nauck, B., Neyer, F.J., Walper, S., Alt, P.,
Borschel, E., Bozoyan, C., Finn, C., Garrett, M., Greischel, H., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B.,
Lenke, R., Müller, B., Peter, T., Schmiedeberg, C., Schütze, P., Schumann, N., Thönnissen, C.,
Wetzel, M., Wilhelm, B. (2018a) The German Family Panel (pairfam). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.
26
Budgeon, S. (2008) Couple Culture and the Production of Singleness. Sexualities. 11(3), 301–325.
Byrne, A. (2003) Developing a Sociological Model for Researching Women’s Self and Social
Identities. European Journal of Women’s Studies. 10(4), 443–464.
Cagan, S. (2004) Quirkyalone: a manifesto for uncompromising romantics. New York: Harper
Collins.
Chappell, N. (1991) The role of family and friends in quality of life. In The Concept of Measurement
of Quality of Life in Frail Elderly. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 171–190.
Choo, P., Levine, T., Hatfield, E. (1996) Gender, love schemas, and reactions to romantic break-
ups. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 11(5), 143–160.
Chopik, W.J. (2017) Associations among relational values, support, health, and well-being across
the adult lifespan. Personal Relationships. 24(2), 408–422.
Dalton, S.T. (1992) Lived experience of never-married women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing.
13(2), 69–80.
Davies, L. (2003) Singlehood: Transitions within a gendered world. Canadian Journal on Aging.
22(4), 343–352.
Dawson, M., McDonnell, L., Scott, S. (2016) Negotiating the boundaries of intimacy: The personal
lives of asexual people. The Sociological Review. 62(2), 349–365.
Day, M.V., Kay, A.C., Holmes, J.G., Napier, J.L. (2011) System justification and the defense of
committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101(2), 291–306.
Demey, D., Berrington, A., Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J. (2013) Pathways into living alone in mid-
life: Diversity and policy implications. Advances in Life Course Research. 18(3), 161–174.
DePaulo, B. (2019a) Stories on the Benefits of Singlehood: A Response to the Growing Number of
Single People. Single at heart. [online]. Available from: https://blogs.psychcentral.com/single-at-
heart/2019/08/stories-on-the-benefits-of-singlehood-a-response-to-the-growing-number-of-
single-people/ [Accessed October 19, 2019].
DePaulo, B. (2019b) The Community Of Single People Is 4 Years Old: We’re From All Around The
World. Single at heart. [online]. Available from: https://www.belladepaulo.com/2019/07/the-
community-of-single-people-is-4-years-old-were-from-all-around-the-world/ [Accessed October
19, 2019].
DePaulo, B.M., Morris, W. l. (2005b) Should singles and the scholars who study them make their
mark or stay in their place? Psychological Inquiry. 16(2–3), 142–149.
DePaulo, B.M., Morris, W.L. (2005a) Singles in Society and in Science. Psychological Inquiry. 16(2–
3), 57–83.
DePaulo, B.M., Morris, W.L. (2006) The Unrecognized Stereotyping and Discrimination Against
Singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 15(5), 251–254.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E., Smith, H.L. (1999) Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological Bulletin. 125(2), 276–302.
Dush, C.M.K., Amato, P.R. (2005) Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective
well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 22(5), 607–627.
27
Dykstra, P.A., Fokkema, T. (2007) Social and Emotional Loneliness Among Divorced and Married
Men and Women: Comparing the Deficit and Cognitive Perspectives. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology. 29(1), 1–12.
Dykstra, P.A., Poortman, A.-R. (2010) Economic Resources and Remaining Single: Trends Over
Time. European Sociological Review. 26(3), 277–290.
Elder, G.H. (1994) Time, Human Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the Life Course. Social
Psychology Quarterly. 57(1), 4–15.
Ermer, A.E., Proulx, C.M. (2019) Associations Between Social Connectedness, Emotional Well-
Being, and Self-Rated Health Among Older Adults: Difference by Relationship Status. Research on
Aging. 41(4), 336–361.
Feijten, P. (2005) Union Dissolution, Unemployment and Moving Out of Homeownership.
European Sociological Review. 21(1), 59–71.
Feijten, P., Ham, M. van (2010) The Impact of Splitting Up and Divorce on Housing Careers in the
UK. Housing Studies. 25(4), 483–507.
Festinger, L.A. (1957) Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, C.A.: Stanford University Press.
Gifford, R., Cave, M. (2012) The complementary natures of resource theory and interpersonal
evaluation theory. In Handbook of social resource theory. New York: Springer, pp. 223–236.
Greif, G.L., Deal, K.H. (2012) The Impact of Divorce on Friendships With Couples and Individuals.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 53(6), 421–435.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009) Stereotypes of singles: are singles what we think? European Journal of
Social Psychology. 39(3), 368–383.
Grover, S., Helliwell, J.F. (2019) How’s Life at Home? New Evidence on Marriage and the Set Point
for Happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies. 20(2), 373–390.
Gubruim, J.F., Holstein, J.A. (1995) Individual Agency, the Ordinary, and Postmodern Life. The
Sociological Quarterly. 36, 550–570.
Hartup, W.W., Stevens, N. (1997) Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological
Bulletin. 121(3), 355–370.
Hertel, J., Schütz, A., DePaulo, B.M., Morris, W.L., Stucke, T.S. (2007) She’s single, so what? How
are singles perceived compared with people who are married? Zeitschrift fur Familienforschung
(Journal of Family Research). 19, 139–158.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., Jones, B.Q. (2008) Is there something unique about marriage?
The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on
ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the
Society of Behavioral Medicine. 35(2), 239–244.
Johnson, J.R., Campbell, L.E.G. (1988) Impasses of divorce. The dynamics and resolution of family
conflict. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kalmijn, M., van Groenou, M.B. (2005) Differential effects of divorce on social integration. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships. 22(4), 455–476.
Kalmijn, M., Poortman, A.-R. (2006) His or Her Divorce? The Gendered Nature of Divorce and its
Determinants. European Sociological Review. 22(2), 201–214.
28
Kamp Dush, C.M., Taylor, M.G., Kroeger, R.A. (2008) Marital Happiness and Psychological Well-
Being Across the Life Course. Family Relations. 57(2), 211–226.
Karfopoulou, E., Anastasiou, C.A., Avgeraki, E., Kosmidis, M.H., Yannakoulia, M. (2016) The role of
social support in weight loss maintenance: results from the MedWeight study. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine. 39(3), 511–518.
Klinenberg, E. (2012) Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal on living alone. New
York: The Penguin Press.
Krapf, S. (2017) Moving in or Breaking Up? The Role of Distance in the Development of Romantic
Relationships. European Journal of Population.
Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D. (2017) Childlessness in East and West Germany: Long-Term Trends
and Social Disparities. In M. Kreyenfeld & D. Konietzka, eds. Childlessness in Europe: Contexts,
Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, pp. 97–114.
Leopold, T. (2018) Gender Differences in the Consequences of Divorce: A Study of Multiple
Outcomes. Demography. 55(3), 769–797.
Loewenstein, S.F., Bloch, N.E., Campion, J., Epstein, J.S., Gale, P., Salvatore, M. (1981) A study of
satisfactions and stresses of single women in midlife. Sex Roles. 7(11), 1127–1141.
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., Lockwood, C.M. (2000) Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding
and Suppression Effect. Prevention Science. 1(4), 173–181.
Marks, N.F. (1996) Flying solo at midlife: Gender, marital status, and psychological well-being.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58(4), 917–932.
Mastekaasa, A. (1994) The subjective well-being of the previously married: The importance of
unmarried cohabitation and time since widowhood or divorce. Social Forces. 73(2), 665–692.
McDermott, R., Fowler, J., Christakis, N. (2013) Breaking Up is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else is
Doing it Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample. Social forces; a scientific
medium of social study and interpretation. 92(2), 491–519.
Mearns, J. (1991) Coping with a breakup: negative mood regulation expectancies and depression
following the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60(2),
327–334.
Miller, N.B., Smerglia, V.L., Gaudet, D.S., Kitson, G.C. (1998) Stressful life events, social support,
and the distress of widowed and divorced women: A counteractive model. Journal of Family
Issues. 19(2), 181–203.
Morris, W.L., DePaulo, B.M., Hertel, J., Taylor, L.C. (2008) Singlism- Another Problem that has No
Name: Prejudice, Stereotypes and Discrimination Against Singles. In The Psychology of Modern
Prejudice. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 165–194.
Nicolaisen, M., Thorsen, K. (2017) What Are Friends for? Friendships and Loneliness Over the
Lifespan-From 18 to 79 Years. International Journal of Aging & Human Development. 84(2), 126–
158.
Pearlin, L.I., Johnson, J.S. (1977) Marital status, life-strains and depression. American Sociological
Review. 42(5), 704–715.
Perelli-Harris, B., Hoherz, S., Addo, F., Lappegård, T., Evans, A., Sassler, S., Styrc, M. (2018) Do
Marriage and Cohabitation Provide Benefits to Health in Mid-Life? The Role of Childhood
29
Selection Mechanisms and Partnership Characteristics Across Countries. Population Research and
Policy Review. 37(5), 703–728.
Perilloux, C., Buss, D.M. (2008) Breaking up Romantic Relationships: Costs Experienced and Coping
Strategies Deployed. Evolutionary Psychology. 6(1), 147470490800600130.
Pudrovska, T., Schieman, S., Carr, D. (2006) Strains of singlehood in later life: do race and gender
matter? The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 61(6),
S315-322.
Rackow, P., Scholz, U., Hornung, R. (2015) Received social support and exercising: An intervention
study to test the enabling hypothesis. British Journal of Health Psychology. 20(4), 763–776.
Régnier-Loilier, A. (2016) Partnership trajectories of people in stable non-cohabiting relationships
in France. Demographic Research. 35(40), 1169–1212.
Reneflot, A., Mamelund, S. (2011) The Association Between Marital Status and Psychological Well-
being in Norway. European Sociological Review. 28(3), 355–365.
Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M. (2003) The Discursive Climate of Singleness: The Consequences for
Women’s Negotiation of a Single Identity. Feminism & Psychology. 13(4), 489–510.
Rhoades, G.K., Kamp Dush, C.M., Atkins, D.C., Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J. (2011) Breaking Up is
Hard to do: The Impact of Unmarried Relationship Dissolution on Mental Health and Life
Satisfaction. Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the
American Psychological Association (Division 43). 25(3), 366–374.
Sandström, G., Karlsson, L. (2019) The educational gradient of living alone: A comparison among
the working-age population in Europe. Demographic Research. 40(55), 1645–1670.
Sandstrom, G.M., Dunn, E.W. (2014) Social Interactions and Well-Being: The Surprising Power of
Weak Ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 40(7), 910–922.
Sbarra, D.A., Emery, R.E. (2005) The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution:
Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships. 12(2), 213–
232.
Scherrer, K.S. (2008) Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire.
Sexualities. 11(5), 621–641.
Schmitt, D.P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleitner, A., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K.L., Bianchi, G.,
Boholst, F., Borg Cunen, M.A., Braeckman, J., Brainerd, E.G., Caral, L.G.A., Caron, G., Casullo,
M.M., Cunningham, M., Daibo, I., De Backer, C., De Souza, E., Diaz-Loving, R., Diniz, G., Durkin, K.,
Echegaray, M., Eremsoy, E., Euler, H.A., Falzon, R., Fisher, M.L., Foley, D., Fry, D.P., Fry, S., Ghayur,
M.A., Golden, D.L., Grammer, K., Grimaldi, L., Halberstadt, J., Haque, S., Herrera, D., Hertel, J.,
Hoffmann, H., Hooper, D., Hradilekova, Z., Hudek-Kene-evi, J., Jaafar, J., Jankauskaite, M.,
Kabangu-Stahel, H., Kardum, I., Khoury, B., Kwon, H., Laidra, K., Laireiter, A.-R., Lakerveld, D.,
Lampert, A., Lauri, M., Lavallée, M., Lee, S.-J., Leung, L.C., Locke, K.D., Locke, V., Luksik, I.,
Magaisa, I., Marcinkeviciene, D., Mata, A., Mata, R., McCarthy, B., Mills, M.E., Mkhize, N.J.,
Moreira, J., Moreira, S., Moya, M., Munyae, M., Noller, P., Opre, A., Panayiotou, A., Petrovic, N.,
Poels, K., Popper, M., Poulimenou, M., P’yatokha, V., Raymond, M., Reips, U.-D., Reneau, S.E.,
Rivera-Aragon, S., Rowatt, W.C., Ruch, W., Rus, V.S., Safir, M.P., Salas, S., Sambataro, F.,
Sandnabba, K.N., Schulmeyer, M.K., Schütz, A., Scrimali, T., Shackelford, T.K., Shaver, P.R.,
Sichona, F., Simonetti, F., Sineshaw, T., Sookdew, R., Speelman, T., Spyrou, S., Sümer, H.C., Sümer,
N., Supekova, M., Szlendak, T., Timmermans, B., Tooke, W., Tsaousis, I., Tungaraza, F.S.K., van
Overwalle, F., Vandermassen, G., Vanhoomissen, T., Vanwesenbeeck, I., Vasey, P.L., Verissimo, J.,
Voracek, M., Wan, W.W.N., Wang, T.-W., Weiss, P., Wijaya, A., Woertman, L., Youn, G., Zupanèiè,
30
A., International Sexuality Description Project (2004) Patterns and universals of mate poaching
across 53 nations: the effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another
person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86(4), 560–584.
Settersten, R.A., Mayer, K.U. (1997) The Measurement of Age, Age Structuring, and the Life
Course. Annual Review of Sociology. 23(1), 233–261.
Shapiro, A.D. (1996) Explaining psychological distress in a sample of remarried and divorced
persons: The influence of economic distress. Journal of Family Issues. 17(2), 186–203.
Sharp, E.A., Ganong, L. (2011) “I’m a Loser, I’m Not Married, Let’s Just All Look at Me”: Ever-Single
Women’s Perceptions of Their Social Environment. Journal of Family Issues. 32(7), 956–980.
Sharp, E.A., Ganong, L. (2007) Living in the Gray: Women’s Experiences of Missing the Marital
Transition. Journal of Marriage and Family. 69(3), 831–844.
Shor, E., Roelfs, D.J., Bugyi, P., Schwartz, J.E. (2012) Meta-analysis of marital dissolution and
mortality: reevaluating the intersection of gender and age. Social Science & Medicine (1982).
75(1), 46–59.
Simon, R.W., Marcussen, K. (1999) Marital transitions, marital beliefs, and mental health. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior. 40(2), 111–125.
Simpson, R. (2006) The Intimate Relationships of Contemporary Spinsters. Sociological Research
Online. 11(3), 1–12.
Slonim, G., Gur-Yaish, N., Kat, R. (2015) By choice or by circumstance?: Stereotypes of and feelings
about single people. Studia Psychologica. 57(1), 35–48.
Slotter, E.B., Gardner, W.L., Finkel, E.J. (2010) Who Am I Without You? The Influence of Romantic
Breakup on the Self-Concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36(2), 147–160.
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.
Sprecher, S. (1994) Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships. Personal Relationships. 1(3),
199–222.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., Vanni, D. (1998) Factors Associated with Distress
Following the Breakup of a Close Relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 15(6),
791–809.
Stack, R.J., Meredith, A. (2018) The Impact of Financial Hardship on Single Parents: An Exploration
of the Journey From Social Distress to Seeking Help. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 39(2),
233–242.
Stack, S., Eshleman, J.R. (1998) Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 60(2), 527–536.
Stein, P.J. (1975) Singlehood: An alternative to marriage. The Family Coordinator. 24(4), 489–503.
Strohschein, L., McDonough, P., Monette, G., Shao, Q. (2005) Marital transitions and mental
health: are there gender differences in the short-term effects of marital status change? Social
Science & Medicine (1982). 61(11), 2293–2303.
Tashiro, T., Frazier, P. (2003) ‘I’ll never be in a relationship like that again’: Personal growth
following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships. 10(1), 113–128.
31
Terhell, E.L., Broese van Groenou, M.I., van Tilburg, T. (2004) Network dynamics in the long-term
period after divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 21(6), 719–738.
Timonen, V., Doyle, M. (2013) Life-long singlehood: intersections of the past and the present.
Ageing & Society. 34(10), 1749–1770.
Törnblom, K.Y., Fredholm, E.M. (1984) Attribution of friendship: The influence of the nature and
comparability of resources given and received. Social Psychology Quarterly. 47(1), 50–61.
Turner, J.L., Foa, E.B., Foa, U.G. (1971) Interpersonal reinforcers: Classification, interrelationship,
and some differential properties. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 19(2), 168–180.
Umberson, D., Wortman, C.B., Kessler, R.C. (1992) Widowhood and depression: explaining long-
term gender differences in vulnerability. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 33(1), 10–24.
UNECE Statistical Database (2019) Mean age at first marriage by sex.
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., Enzlin, P. (2015) Stories About Asexuality: A Qualitative
Study on Asexual Women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 41(3), 262–281.
Verbakel, E. (2012) Subjective Well-Being by Partnership Status and Its Dependence on the
Normative Climate. European Journal of Population. 28(2), 205–232.
Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., Blakeslee, S. (2000) The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce: A 25 Year
Landmark Study. Hyperion Books.
van der Wiel, R., Mulder, C.H., Bailey, A. (2018) Pathways to commitment in living-apart-together
relationships in the Netherlands: A study on satisfaction, alternatives, investments and social
support. Advances in Life Course Research. 36, 13–22.
Wiik, K.A., Dommermuth, L. (2014) Who Remains Unpartnered by Mid-Life in Norway?
Differentials by Gender and Education. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 45(3), 405–424.
Wright, M.R., Brown, S.L. (2017) Psychological Well-being Among Older Adults: The Role of
Partnership Status. Journal of Marriage and Family. 79(3), 833–849.
Zajicek, A.M., Koski, P.R. (2003) Strategies of Resistance to Stigmatization Among White Middle-
Class Singles. Sociological Spectrum. 23(3), 377–403.
32
Tables
Table 1 Characteristics of those unpartnered in mid-thirties at the moment of the interview. Weighted percentages or means (standard errors) and unweighted cases
Male
Female
Full sample
Variables
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Past intimate relationship(s)
Lifelong singlehood
26.4
81
8.1
26
18.5
107
Past relationship with a LAT partner
30.0
91
24.4
69
27.6
160
Past relationship with a coresident partner
35.4
136
61.5
238
46.7
374
No information about past relationship(s)
8.1
20
6
23
7.2
43
Satisfaction with being single
5.92 (0.51)
6.13 (0.16)
6.01 (0.11)
Satisfaction with friends, social contacts
7.22 (0.16)
7.57 (0.15)
7.37 (0.11)
Frequency of contacting biological parents
Both parents died
4.5
16
3.1
12
3.9
28
At least once a week
80.1
265
78
274
79.2
539
At least once a month
9.3
26
8.2
27
8.8
53
Several times per year or never
6.1
24
10.7
40
8.1
64
Educational attainment
Low
8.7
35
11.5
53
9.9
88
Medium
58.4
209
56.1
208
57.4
417
High
32.9
87
32.4
92
32.7
179
Labour force status
Employed
77.2
251
66.5
219
72.6
470
33
Male
Female
Full sample
Variables
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Weighted % or
mean (SE)
Unweighted N
Not in labour force
10.0
33
18.8
80
13.8
113
Unemployed
12.8
47
14.7
54
13.6
101
Religiosity
Without religious background
63.1
203
66.2
222
64.4
425
With religious background
36.9
128
33.8
131
35.6
259
Household composition
Living alone
75.6
236
47.7
116
63.6
352
Parents or others (relatives, siblings, friends, housemates,
children could live as well)
19.7
73
12.2
32
16.4
105
Children only
3.8
18
33.3
168
16.6
186
Not clear with whom, but not alone
0.9
4
6.8
37
3.4
41
Self-rated health in the past 4 weeks
Poor
14.2
53
19.8
74
16.7
127
Satisfactory
21.3
74
28.4
98
24.4
172
Good
64.4
204
51.8
181
59
385
Country of birth
East Germany
72.5
225
68.6
216
70.8
441
West Germany
16.6
75
18.6
77
17.4
152
Other
10.9
31
12.9
60
11.7
91
Total
100
331
100
353
100
684
Notes: pairfam, own calculations; SE- standard error; N- number of cases; italic and bolded numbers indicate that the specific variable is associated with gender at 5% significance level (according to a
c
2
test of association).
34
Table 2 Linear regression on satisfaction with being single
Satisfaction with being single
M1
M2
M3
M4
Variables
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
Past intimate relationship(s) (ref. No
past intimate relationship)
Past LAT relationship
-0.43
-0.55+
-0.55+
-0.86*
Past coresidential relationship
-0.52
-0.63*
-0.61+
-0.71+
No information provided about past
relationship(s)
0.35
0.08
0.12
-0.10
Satisfaction with friends and social
contacts
0.24***
0.25***
0.25***
Frequency of contacting biological
parents (ref. At least once a week)
Both parents died
0.04
0.04
At least once a month
0.62*
0.69*
Several times per year or never
-0.10
-0.11
Gender (ref. Male)
Female
0.57*
0.42+
0.42+
-0.34
Educational attainment (ref. Low)
Medium
-0.11
-0.21
-0.25
-0.26
High
-0.50
-0.60
-0.67+
-0.69+
Labour force status (ref. Employed)
Not employed
-0.26
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
Religiosity (ref. Without religious
background)
With religious background
0.08
0.16
0.15
0.17
Household composition (ref. Living
alone)
Parents and/or others
-0.05
-0.05
-0.04
-0.05
Children only
-0.44
-0.36
-0.34
-0.32
Not clear with whom, but not alone
0.30
0.57
0.54
0.53
Health status (ref. At least good)
Poor
-0.61*
-0.38
-0.44
-0.44
Satisfactory
-0.75**
-0.57*
-0.56*
-0.56*
Country of birth (ref. East Germany)
West Germany
-0.29
-0.46
-0.47
-0.52+
Other
-0.66*
-0.51
-0.52+
-0.55+
Interaction effect between past intimate
relationship and gender
Past relationship, with a LAT partner x
Female
1.19
Past relationship, with a coresident
partner x Female
0.67
No information provided about past
relationship(s) x Female
0.97
Constant
6.84***
5.17***
5.12***
5.26***
N
684
684
684
684
35
Satisfaction with being single
M1
M2
M3
M4
Variables
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
Unstand.
Coeff
p value from Wald test
-
0.000
0.239
0.497
!
"
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.11
Notes: pairfam, own computations; unstand. coeff – unstandardized coefficients; N – number of cases; +
0.10 * 0.05 ** 0.01 *** 0.001
36
Appendix
Table 3 below shows the distribution of both satisfaction with being single and social networks by
past intimate relationship(s). Table 4 shows the distribution of the demographic and socio-
economic control variables by past intimate relationship(s).
By looking at Table 3 and 4 I investigate a) how do the distribution of both satisfaction with being
single and social networks and b) the other socio-economic control variables differ among those
lifelong single, those who had only past LAT relationship(s), and those who had past coresidential
relationship(s).
Table 3 The distribution of the main variables of interest by past intimate relationship(s). Weighted means (standard
errors) and weighted percentages
Past intimate relationship(s)
Main variables of interest
Lifelong
singlehood
Past LAT
relationship
Past
coresidential
relationship
No
information
provided
about past
intimate
relationships
Satisfaction with being single
6.24 (0.27)
5.96 (0.21)
5.86 (0.15)
6.61 (0.47)
Satisfaction with friends
6.98 (0 24)
7.50 (0.23)
7.37 (0.16)
7.86 (0.34)
Frequency of contacting biological parents
Both parents died
3.3
3.4
4.1
5.8
At least once a week
82.1
78
78.7
80
At least once a month
10.1
11.2
7.5
4.8
Several times per year or never
4.5
7.4
9.7
9.4
Total (weighted) %
100
100
100
100
Total (unweighted N)
107
160
374
43
Notes: pairfam, own calculations; SE- standard error; N- number of cases; italic and bolded numbers
indicate that the specific variable is associated with gender at 5% significance level (according to a
c
"
test of
association).
37
Table 4 The distribution of the control variables by past intimate relationships
Past intimate relationship(s)
Control variables
Lifelong
singlehood
Past LAT
relationship
Past
coresidential
relationship
No information
provided about
past intimate
relationships
Gender
Male
81.1
61.8
43.1
64
Female
18.9
38.2
56.9
36
Educational attainment
Low
8.9
6.2
12.3
11.8
Medium
51
58.7
59.1
57.6
High
40.1
35.1
28.7
30.6
Labour force status
Not employed
16.8
21.3
23.9
35.2
Employed
83.2
78.7
76.1
64.8
Religiosity
Without religious background
69.3
66.5
61
66
With religious background
30.7
33.5
39
34
Household composition
Living alone
72.5
73.3
54.7
60.7
Parents or others (relatives, siblings,
friends, housemates, children could live
as well)
23.8
19.5
11.6
17.2
Children only
3.7
4.9
28.5
17.3
Not clear with whom, but not alone
0
2.3
5.3
4.8
Self-rated health in the past 4 weeks
Poor
5.9
15
22.3
14
Satisfactory
30.3
25.3
21.3
25.4
Good
63.8
59.6
56.4
60.6
Country of birth
East Germany
68.7
77.9
68.2
65.5
West Germany
19.2
14.6
18.1
19.3
Other
12
7.5
13.6
15.3
Total (weighted) %
100
100
100
100
Total (unweighted N)
107
160
374
43
Notes: pairfam, own calculations; SE- standard error; N- number of cases; italic and bolded numbers indicate
that the specific variable is associated with past intimate relationship(s) at 5% significance level (according to a
c
"
test of association).
38
Table 5 The means and standard errors of satisfaction with friends and social contacts over past intimate relationship(s)
among those unpartnered
Summary of satisfaction with friends and
social contacts
Past intimate relationship(s)
Mean
Standard error
Min
Max
N
Lifelong singlehood
6.98
0.25
0
10
107
Past LAT relationship
7.50
0.23
0
10
160
Past coresidential relationship
7.38
0.16
0
10
374
No information about past intimate relationship
7.86
0.35
0
10
43
Total
7.37
0.11
0
10
684
