Elsevier

Social Science Research

Volume 39, Issue 6, November 2010, Pages 938-949
Social Science Research

Singles’ relational attitudes in a time of individualization

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.012Get rights and content

Abstract

The rise in singlehood among young adults is often seen as an indication that young adults are nowadays more individualized, suggesting that singlehood is viewed as a positive experience. Using the Panel Study of Social Integration in the Netherlands, we examined singles’ (N = 836) relational attitudes across young adulthood. Singles were not very positive about singlehood and a large majority felt more positive about a partner relationship than about being alone. Most singles were also more positive about living together than about steady dating and cohabitation was more popular than marriage. We furthermore examined whether values, life-course experiences and ageing influence singles’ relational attitudes. Value orientations and age proved to be the most consistent predictors. Singles with liberal values and older singles had less positive attitudes toward relational commitment than less liberal and younger singles. The findings suggest that the positive image of singlehood needs to be reconsidered.

Introduction

Singlehood has been on the rise over the past decades and will probably continue to do so in Western countries, as figures on the increase in single-person households show (Day, 1996; Fields and Casper, 2001 for the United States; Fokkema and Liefbroer, 2008 for Europe and the Netherlands). An ageing population, delayed union formation and the rise in divorce and separation are the driving forces behind this trend (Fokkema and Liefbroer, 2008). The rise in singlehood—at least among younger adults, as widowhood among elderly persons is not a choice (Kuijsten, 1999)—is often considered to be an expression of individualization, a process characterized by a growing emphasis on individual autonomy and independence from traditions and institutions (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, Lesthaeghe and Surkyn, 1988). In line with this view on singlehood, the media have projected an increasingly positive image of singles. Alongside persisting general negative stereotypes of singles (DePaulo and Morris, 2006), the image of the 20- or 30-something, active and sociable single, who does not necessarily need a partner to be happy, has become increasingly prevalent (Cargan, 1986).

Whether singlehood is really a manifestation of the individualization process partly depends upon whether singles actually favor an uncommitted life-style. Individualization may be conceived in two ways: (1) as an increased freedom of choice in how to shape one’s life, or (2) as implying more individualistic attitudes that favor less commitment toward others. In the first instance, individualization does not necessarily imply a positive attitude towards singlehood; singles may, for example, prefer having a partner, and yet may still be single for reasons other than that they choose to be single. However, if singlehood indeed reflects an individual’s freedom of choice—as is often assumed—, singles are expected to be positive about being alone as singlehood is of their own choosing. The second view on individualization almost certainly implies positive attitudes toward singlehood as the single state is likely to be singles’ own choice reflecting their individualistic attitudes. Hence, if singlehood would indeed be an expression of individualization, singles would have a positive view on singlehood according to both views. Contrary to this popular image, however, the group of singles who think singlehood is an attractive option might be relatively small and selective. Many studies have for example shown that singles generally do worse in terms of well-being and health than their married or cohabiting counterparts (e.g., Joung et al., 1994, Peters and Liefbroer, 1997, Waite, 1995). These findings are hard to reconcile with the view that singles have positive views on singlehood.

To gain insight into whether the individualized view on singlehood bears empirical truth, this study focuses on singles’ relational attitudes. We use panel data on adults without a partner between the ages of 18–40 at the turn of the 20th century in the Netherlands. Although data about relational attitudes of both older and younger birth cohorts would be ideal to study increased individualization, our data focus on young adults only. These younger adults are most likely to have been affected by individualization and the Netherlands is one of the most individualized countries in Europe (Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, 2000).

We first examine the extent to which singles are positive towards (1) singlehood, (2) steady dating, (3) cohabitation and (4) marriage. These relationship types differ in their level of commitment; singlehood means by definition no commitment to a partner and the level of commitment is likely to increase from steady dating, to cohabitation, to marriage (Nock, 1995, Stanley et al., 2004). Singles’ attitudes toward these different relationship types thus reveal their views on singlehood, and more generally, on relational commitment. We use both absolute and relative measures of relational attitudes. Absolute measures indicate singles’ attitudes toward each relationship type separately, whereas relative measures compare single’s attitudes toward the four relationship types. In particular, we examine whether singles are more positive (1) about a relationship per se than about singlehood, (2) about living together (be it married or cohabiting) than about steady dating, and (3) about marriage than about cohabitation.

Second, we examine which singles are most positive about the distinguished relationship types, and thus, different levels of relational commitment. We apply a life-course perspective; people’s attitudes are assumed to be shaped by value orientations that are often strongly influenced by socialization experiences during youth, but may be altered due to life events and developmental change over the life course (Elder, 1994). This leads to three types of determinants: (a) value orientations, (b) life-course experiences in the work and family domain, and (c) developmental change. According to the first type of determinants, singles are less positive about more committed relationship types if they value autonomy and a liberal life-style. The presumed role of value orientations therefore corresponds to the individualized view that singles value their non-committal stance as an inherently attractive option. The other two types of determinants do not necessarily imply such a positive view on singlehood. Singles may hold unfavorable attitudes towards relational commitment due to negative past relational experiences or they may simply adjust their attitudes to changing circumstances.

Section snippets

Past research, theory and hypotheses

We expand upon existing research about relational attitudes in several respects. First, prior research has predominantly used absolute measures of people’s relational attitudes and has focused on people’s views on single life, marriage and cohabitation (Cunningham and Thornton, 2005, Thornton and Freedman, 1982, Thornton and Young-DeMarco, 2001). We also examine people’s attitudes toward steady dating, that is, steady relationships between partners who do not live together—sometimes also called

Data

The data for this study come from the Panel Study on Social Integration in the Netherlands (PSIN; see Liefbroer and Kalmijn, 1997). This is a panel study designed to study the process of social integration of young adults within the life-domains of living arrangements and family formation on the one hand, and education and occupation on the other hand. The panel study consists of six waves of data collection among a sample of Dutch young adults from the birth cohorts 1961, 1965 and 1969. Data

Results

Table 2 presents information about the attitudes of young adult singles toward singlehood, a steady relationship, cohabitation and marriage. The upper panel refers to the absolute measures, and the lower panel shows the descriptive figures for the relative measures. We present average scores on the respective scales. For descriptive purposes we also categorized scores on the absolute and relative measures of relational attitudes.

From the top panel, it can be seen that singles are least positive

Conclusion

The recent rise in singlehood is often interpreted as an expression of individualization. According to this line of reasoning, the increase in singlehood reflects the expanded freedom of choice people nowadays have and people’s increasingly individualistic attitudes. This positive image of singlehood has also been cultivated in the mass media. To gain insight into whether this image of singlehood is empirically substantiated, we examined attitudes toward singlehood as well as attitudes toward

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, 451-03-064). Financial support for the PSIN has been provided by the VU University Amsterdam, Utrecht University, Tilburg University, and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and stimulating comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References (50)

  • D.F. Alwin

    Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958–1983

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1984)
  • D.F. Alwin et al.

    The measurement of values in surveys: a comparison of ratings and rankings

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1985)
  • J.J. Arnett

    Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties

    American Psychologist

    (2000)
  • W.G. Axinn et al.

    Mothers, children and cohabitation: the intergenerational effects of attitudes and behavior

    American Sociological Review

    (1993)
  • U. Beck et al.

    Individualization. Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences

    (2002)
  • H.-P. Blossfeld et al.

    Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family formation

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1991)
  • L. Cargan

    Stereotypes of singles: a cross-cultural comparison

    International Journal of Comparative Sociology

    (1986)
  • J.S. Clausen

    Adolescent competence and the shaping of the life course

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1991)
  • M. Cunningham et al.

    The influence of union transitions on white adults’ attitudes toward cohabitation

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2005)
  • M. Cunningham

    The influence of parental attitudes and behaviors on children’s attitudes toward gender and household labor in early adulthood

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2001)
  • L. Davies

    Singlehood: transitions within a gendered world

    Canadian Journal of Aging

    (2003)
  • J.C. Day

    Projections of the number of households and families in the United States: 1995 to 2010. Current Population Reports, P25–1129

    (1996)
  • B.M. DePaulo et al.

    The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2006)
  • G.H. Elder

    Time, human agency, and social change: perspectives on the life course

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1994)
  • J. Fields et al.

    America’s families and living arrangements: March 2000. Current Population Reports, P20–537

    (2001)
  • T. Fokkema et al.

    Trends in living arrangements in Europe: convergence or divergence?

    Demographic Research

    (2008)
  • P. Frazier et al.

    Desire for marriage and life satisfaction among unmarried heterosexual adults

    Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

    (1996)
  • A. Hammerle et al.

    Panel analysis for qualitative variables

  • J. Heckhausen

    Developmental Regulation in Adulthood. Age-normative and Sociostructural Constraints as Adaptive Challenges

    (1999)
  • C. Hsiao

    Panel analysis for metric data

  • R. Inglehart

    Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies

    (1997)
  • R. Inglehart et al.

    Measuring postmaterialism

    American Political Science Review

    (1999)
  • M.K. Johnson

    Social origins, adolescent experiences, and work value trajectories during the transition to adulthood

    Social Forces

    (2002)
  • I.M.A. Joung et al.

    Differences in self-reported morbidity by marital status and by living arrangement

    International Journal of Epidemiology

    (1994)
  • M. Kohn

    Class and Conformity: A Study in Values

    (1969)
  • Cited by (43)

    • Associations between cognitive function and marital status in the United States, South Africa, Mexico, and China

      2022, SSM - Population Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the United States, there is a high value placed on marriage (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001), as evidenced by the widely held expectation and hope to marry (Edin & Kefalas, 2011; L. Waite & Gallagher, 2002). At the same time, U.S. society places a high value on individualism (Poortman & Liefbroer, 2010), and so remaining single (i.e., never marrying) is not particularly undesirable and, therefore, may not substantially impact social ties or be associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Similarly, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of divorce in the world (Cherlin, 2009), and divorce is a fairly normalized experience.

    • Tiny portable home: Measuring the rental preferences

      2021, Cities
      Citation Excerpt :

      No universal housing solution fits the specificity of every country's housing system and matches the needs of every resident. However, the significance of this analysis extends beyond the requirement for a smaller space to suit the increasing number of single-person households (Poortman & Liefbroer, 2010; Thornton, 1989). Tiny portable homes can also be one among a series of affordable housing solutions for low-income families (Opoku & Abdul-Muhmin, 2010), the urban and rural poor (Jackson et al., 2020; McCray & Day, 1977), rural living (Aman & Yarnal, 2010), young people (Clapham et al., 2012; Forrest & Yip, 2012; Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2015; McKee, 2012), working migrants (Geieregger & Oehmichen, 2008; Goodson et al., 2017), and the elderly or disabled (Kovacic et al., 2015; Tripple et al., 1990; Ziegler Jr, 1982).

    • Defining and measuring singlehood in family studies

      2023, Journal of Family Theory and Review
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text