DePaulo - Single in a society preoccupied with couples

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

17

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples

Bella DePaulo

Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

To me, solitude is so very sweet that I have to remind myself that not everyone experiences­ it that way. I’m nearing 60 and have always been single. I always will be – by choice. I have created a name for people like me – we are single at heart. Single is who we really are. Living single is how we live our most meaningful and authentic lives.

Solitude can be embraced or feared; it can be fulfilling or lonely. Single life is like that, too. I spent much of the first decade or so of my studies of single life pushing back against the presumptions that single people are all miserable and lonely and want nothing more than to become unsingle (DePaulo, 2006, 2011a, 2011b; DePaulo & Morris, 2005). Now it is time to step back and draw the reversible image that is single life (and solitude, too) – look at it one way, through the eyes of someone apprehensive, and it is horrifying; look at it another, from the perspective of one who would embrace it, and it is thrilling. At the heart of the matters of solitude­ and single life is choice. If you are choosing to spend time alone and if you are choosing to be single (the two are not the same), you are far more likely to be satisfied with your time and your life than if those experiences have been thrust upon you without your consent (Dykstra, 1995).

The context of our choices is important, too. In the early twenty-first century, the United States continues to be a society preoccupied with marriage, weddings, and couplings; I call the over-the-top celebratory attitude associated with these activities “matrimania” (DePaulo, 2006). Those who would choose single life in the United States, then, are at risk for being put on the defensive in a way that ­people who choose marriage are not. Similarly, our long national tradition of ­fretting about the decline of community (discussed, e.g., in Klinenberg, 2012) and of caricaturing people who spend a great deal of time alone (Rufus, 2003) casts a shadow on those who would choose solitude. And yet, the demographic face of the nation is changing rapidly and in highly significant ways (DePaulo, 2006). The

The Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation, Social Withdrawal, and Being Alone, First Edition. Edited by Robert J. Coplan and Julie C. Bowker.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 303

number­ of people who are single is increasing steadily and so is the number of people living alone.

The link between living single and loving solitude is an empirical one that has not yet been fully explored. There are indications that people who stay single may be more introverted than those who marry (Marks, 1996), so perhaps they do especially­ savor their time alone (see also Zelenski, Sobocko, & Whelan, Chapter 11, this vol-ume). Yet, there is also evidence from a number of national surveys that people who are single are in some ways more connected to siblings, parents, neighbors, and friends than are people who are married (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 2006; Klinenberg, 2012) and that people who marry become less attentive­ to friends and parents than they were when they were single (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). Therefore, it is also possible that people who are single (uncoupled) prefer to spend more time alone and more time with friends and family than people who are married; what they are doing less of is spending time with a partner. So far, we just don’t know.

Many other important questions about being single remain. For instance, there is ambiguity about the relative number of married versus single people living in the United States today, as I will explain in the next section. And while it is known that the number of nuclear family households in the United States has dropped markedly over the past half century, it is not clear how we are instead living today. Are we more often choosing to live alone or to live with people other than a spouse or partner? When people do choose to live alone, are they also choosing to spend more time alone?

Nevertheless, our understandings of what it means to be single and what it means to spend time alone are growing more sophisticated. Many Americans – as well as people in many other parts of the world – still believe that single people are not as happy or healthy or selfless or sociable as people who are coupled and perhaps­ also that if only they would marry, their emotional and social lives would be so much better (DePaulo, 2011b; Greitemeyer, 2009; Morris, DePaulo, Hertel, & Ritter, 2008). But those prejudi-cial perceptions are not nearly as damning as they were in the 1950s (Klinenberg, 2012). And there are ways in which single people today are viewed more positively than mar-ried people – for example, as less dependent (DePaulo & Morris, 2006).

For decades, our cultural conversations and our academic writings have been dominated by concerns about loneliness and isolation (Wesselmann, Williams, Ren, & Hales, Chapter 13, this volume). Have we become a “lonely crowd”? asked sociologist David Riesman in 1963. Are we “bowling alone”? wondered Robert Putnam at the turn of the twenty-first century (Putnam, 2000). More recently, though, our scholarly perspectives have been shifting. Searches of psychology ­databases increasingly return articles on solitude and not just loneliness. A book on loneliness by a preeminent social scientist received considerable attention (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). A few years later, a book more relevant to the sweetness of solitude,

Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking (Cain, 2012), made an even bigger­ splash as it quickly ascended to the New York Times bestseller list.

In the following pages, I will explore the many shades of single life in a culture preoccupied with couples. I’ll examine recent demographic trends in marital status

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

304 Bella DePaulo

and living arrangements in the United States and assess whether people are judged harshly when they appear alone in public. I will also review the evidence on how the experiences of loneliness and solitude differ for people of different marital statuses­ and different attitudes toward single life.

Are We a Society of Married Couples or a Society of Singles? The Demographics

Of the many questions I have been asked by reporters, my all-time favorite is, “What do you think it is like for married people to live in a society dominated by singles?” She was not referring to cultural dominance, but to the greater number of single than married people in contemporary American society.

The claim that singles rule, numerically, has been made in high-profile places, such as a 2007 New York Times article titled “51% of women are now living without spouse” (Roberts, 2007). The Times made some decisions about counting that I would not have made. For example, they recorded marital status for people 15 and older; I think a more appropriate age is 18. By the latter standard, unmarried Americans are not the majority.

Still, the broader point the Times article made, that the number (and percentage) of unmarried Americans is large and has been growing for decades, is indeed accurate­. As of 2011, there were 102 million Americans, 18 and older, who were divorced or widowed or had always been single. That’s 44.1% of the adult popula-tion. (The number decreases to 88.4 million if people in cohabiting couples, both same sex and opposite sex, are subtracted.) In 1970, only about 38 million Americans 18 and older were not married or 28% of the population.

There is another way in which married couples truly are in the minority. As of 2011, only about 49% of all households included a married couple (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). In 1970, the same figure was approximately 70% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Pick an American home at random and walk through the front door – chances are you will not find a married couple to greet you.

Now that singles have marched into the mainstream of American society, at least numerically, does that mean that they are fully integrated into everyday social life? There are many different ways to approach that question, but only a few are represented in the published literature. I’ll review those next.

Is American Social Life Organized around Couples? Inclusion and Exclusion of People Who Are Single

There is a story I hear from other single people with some regularity. Versions of it have cropped up in my email inboxes, in the comments sections of my blog posts, and in informal conversations. The gist is that the single person in question

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 305

has been good friends with another person for some time, but the single person starts to become marginalized once the friend becomes seriously coupled. Often, ties are maintained through the wedding, when the single person springs for gifts and sometimes travel expenses, too. Then, nothing. The friend has now entered the Married Couples Club and socializes primarily with other couples.

I blog about the topic occasionally, and inevitably married people chime in and object, saying that it is the single person who has excluded their now-coupled friend. It would be possible to conduct a longitudinal study in which groups of friends record their contacts with one another, including reports of who initiated the outings, to see what is really happening when one friend becomes involved in a committed romantic relationship and perhaps marries, while another stays ­single. That study has not yet been done.

What the empirical literature does offer are (i) studies of how couples’ interac-tions with their friends change as their romantic relationship becomes more serious,­ but with no record of the relationship status of the friends (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo, Johnson, & Huston, 1983; Surra, 1985); (ii) cross-sectional research on the number of friends or confidants that people of different life stages or relationship statuses report (Dunbar study, described in Amos, 2010; Kalmijn, 2003); and (iii) a longitudinal study of the time people spend with friends before and after partnering, but again with no data on the relationship status of the friends (Musick & Bumpass, 2012).

In a phenomenon dubbed dyadic withdrawal, research indicates that couples spend more time only with each other as their relationship becomes more serious­ (Milardo et al., 1983; Surra, 1985). Gradually, casual friends and acquaintances are marginalized. Initially, close friends are not completely excluded, but their opinions are valued less than they once were (Johnson & Leslie, 1982). We can-not know from this research whether the friends who were marginalized were mostly single.

Studies of divorced and widowed people suggest that married couples become less important to their social lives than they were when they were married (Milardo, 1987; Morgan, Carter, & Neal, 1997). This research however leaves unanswered the question of whether the previously married people were excluded by couples who prefer to socialize with other couples or whether the newly single people step back from their previous engagements with couples or both.

In 2010, the BBC described the results of research presented at a conference by anthropologist Robin Dunbar in an article titled Falling in love costs you friends (Amos, 2010). Adults completed an online survey in which they listed the people they could approach for help at times of crisis. Participants who were in a romantic relationship named four people, plus their partner – singles named 5.8. Dunbar suggested that people who become romantically attached give up two friends (the one their partner replaces plus one other). Because the research was cross-­sectional, though, we cannot know for sure whether people who become coupled really do drop an average of two friends.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

306 Bella DePaulo

More compelling than Dunbar’s research is a Dutch study based on a repre-sentative national sample of nearly 3000 adults. Participants named up to five of their best friends, not counting their spouse or romantic partner (if they had one) or children (Kalmijn, 2003). Results were compared for people at different life stages and relationship statuses, such as single and not dating, dating, living together without children, living together with children, and empty nesters. Kalmijn found that the number of friends, as well as the number of contacts with friends, tended to decrease across the different categories. Singles, for example, reported an average of four close friends, whereas empty nesters reported three. Again, though, the study was cross-sectional.

A study that comes closest to answering the question of whether getting ­partnered results in spending less time with friends is a 6-year longitudinal study of more than 2700 American adults (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). At the outset, all were under 50, single, and not cohabiting. Those who became partnered over the course of the first 3 years of the study spent less time with their friends (and had less ­contact with their parents) than those who stayed single.

It is possible that couples are especially attuned to each other at the beginning of their relationship and reconnect with the other people in their lives later on. But the results of the study suggest that this is not what typically occurs. Instead, those who had been partnered for at least 4 years, and up to 6 years, also were less connected­ to their friends and their parents than those who stayed single. There was no difference in attending to friends and parents between those who were newly partnered and those who had been partnered for at least 4 years. We do not know whether the friends who were marginalized were disproportionately single.

Because single people, at least by some measures, have more friends and ­confidants than partnered people do, they are not dependent on their friends who got coupled for companionship. They can go out to dinner, movies, sporting events, and all the rest with their other friends. But suppose they do decide to, say, dine alone. Will they be seen as social rejects who cannot find one other person to hang out with, as some of them seem to fear?

Single or Coupled in Public: Who Cares?

One of the first studies I conducted when I set out to learn about single people and their place in society was an elegant and elaborate experiment on perceptions of the solo diner. Suppose you see someone dining alone – what do you think of that person?

I don’t know of any statistics on the frequency with which people dine alone. Look around at any full-service restaurant, though, and you will see that the lone diners are the exceptions. I thought that at least one of the reasons for this apparent reticence about going out to dinner on your own was a concern about how other people would see you. Those contemplating dining solo would worry, I ­presumed,

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 307

that other people would see them as losers who don’t have anyone. Therefore, the first step of my research was to see how people really do view the solo diner. Wendy Morris and Cathy Popp, my colleagues in this enterprise, found an attractive­ restaurant willing to let us send in our various diners and take pictures.

Methodologically, of course, it is not enough simply to collect judgments of solo diners. We also needed to see how the same people would be perceived when they were dining with someone else. We also asked whether perceptions would be different if the same people dined with someone of the other or same sex. What if they were one person in a group of four – two men and two women? Would it matter if the diners were younger (20-something) or somewhat older (40-something)?

We began by taking pictures of four 20-somethings (two men and two women) and four 40-somethings (again, two men and two women) sitting in a booth. Then, in addition to using those photos of the foursomes just as they were, we photoshopped the pictures so that each person appeared to be dining alone or with a person of the other sex or with a person of the same sex. It was important to use the same photo each time, so that the facial expression and posture of the person was exactly the same regardless of whether they were pictured as dining alone or with one or more other people. We then brought our photos to a shopping­ mall and asked hundreds of adults to look at a designated person in a picture and tell us why that person went out to dinner that evening. If the picture was of a person dining solo, we asked them why they thought the person went out to dinner alone.

We coded the responses and analyzed them. We never published our findings. Journals do not like null effects and that’s all we found. What the shoppers thought of the solo diners was no different than what they thought of the same diners when they appeared to be out with one other person or several other people. It didn’t matter if the diner was male or female or younger or older, and it didn’t matter­ whether the person the diner was with (when shown with one other person)­ was the same sex or the other sex. That’s not to say that the solo diners were never scoffed at. They were. But in equal measure, so were the people who were shown dining with someone else.

About the solo diners, some people made remarks such as “He is lonely,” “Doesn’t have many friends,” and “She looks depressed.” But when evaluating ­pictures of a man and a woman dining together, people were equally judgmental. For example, they made comments such as:

•• They went to dinner “to have a talk because their relationship needs some mending.”

••“She is upset.”

••“He thought he liked her.”

••They wanted to “get away from the children.”

••She went out to dinner with him “out of obligation – she’s married to him.”

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

308 Bella DePaulo

Others offered kind words about the pairs of men and women having dinner together. For example, they said that the man was out to “dinner with his wife for fun” or that the two are having a “fine, quiet conversation.” Others said that “they are very close” or that “they enjoy spending time together.”

Yet equally as often, participants had nonjudgmental or positive things to say about the solo diners. For example:

••“Enjoying a few good peaceful moments.”

••“She just wanted to eat by herself.”

••“Traveling.”

••“He seems to be enjoying his dinner.”

••“Wanted time to ponder.”

••And my favorite: “He is secure.”

We never did do the study in which we asked people how they thought they would be judged, depending on whether they were dining alone or with one or more other people. However, Gilovich and Savitsky (1999) have documented an important­ phenomenon that may be relevant – “people’s tendency to overestimate the extent to which their behavior and appearance are noticed and evaluated by others” (p. 165). They call it the “spotlight effect,” after the scene from the movie The lonely guy in which Steve Martin walks into a restaurant alone and a spotlight follows him as he is led to his table. So perhaps what other people think of solo diners, when not prompted to evaluate a photo, is nothing at all – they don’t even notice them.

Living Alone or Living Together:

What Are Twenty-First-Century Americans Choosing?

Since the mid-twentieth century, single-family detached houses have dominated the housing market (Hayden, 2002). The homes were envisioned as havens for mom, dad, and the kids. Nuclear families, though, are no longer the prevailing household form. So how are we living now?

In his book Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone, sociologist Eric Klinenberg (2012) documents the dramatic increase in solo living in the United States. In 1950, four million Americans lived alone, accounting for 9% of all households; as of 2011, 33 million Americans are living solo, amounting to 28% of all households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). As striking as those numbers are, the United States is hardly at the forefront of this major social change. Countries with even higher percentages of single-person households include Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, accounting for about 40–45% of all households.

Does the increase in the number of people living alone mean that the people of the United States – and other countries evidencing the same trend – are at

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 309

risk for growing isolation and loneliness? Klinenberg (2012) acknowledges that there is a potential for dire outcomes, especially among those with the fewest resources of wealth or well-being. More often, though, among the urban solo dwellers who were the focus of his research, their story was about connection and social ­participation rather than withdrawal. Urban dwellers who live alone have a ­number of important options for maintaining their interpersonal and civic ties. First, they can walk out the door and find their way to cultural events, political events, restaurants, shops, and bookstores. Second, even without ever leaving home, they can stay in touch with others with Internet connections and social media.

At the end of his book-length review of the relevant research, Klinenberg (2012) offers these conclusions as to what the growth of solo dwellers means for individu-als and society:

…young and middle-age singletons have helped to revitalize the public life of cities, because they are more likely than those who live with others to spend time with friends and neighbors, to frequent bars, cafes, and restaurants, and to participate in informal social activities as well as civic groups…cultural acceptance of living alone has helped to liberate women from bad marriages and oppressive families…living alone has given people a way to achieve restorative solitude as well as the freedom to engage in intensely social experiences. Surprisingly, it has given people the personal time and space that we sometimes need to make deep and meaningful social connections­ – whether with another person, a community, a cause, or our selves (pp. 230–231).

Alongside the trend toward living alone is another, very different pattern – the growth in people living together with people other than a spouse or partner. In 2010, 30.1% of all American adults – more than 69 million people – lived in shared housing. That was 18.7% of all households. What is proliferating is a variety of ways of living, and what is shrinking is the number of people living in the way so often regarded as traditional – in a nuclear family.

The rise of solo living is linked to economic factors, as it is typically more expen-sive for a person to own or rent their own place than to share the costs of housing. People who live alone are those who can afford to do so. (Census Bureau statistics on types of households do not include group facilities such as nursing homes or prisons.) On the flip side, the recent growth in sharing housing has arisen in part because of the economic recession that dates officially from December 2007 to June 2009 (Mykyta & Macartney, 2012). When Census Bureau demographers studied­ trends between 2007 and 2010, they found that while the adult population had grown by 2.9%, those sharing housing with people other than a spouse or partner grew by 11.1% (Mykyta & Macartney, 2012).

Yet it does not appear to be economic factors alone that motivate many people to live with friends, siblings, parents, adult children, and other relatives. Home sharing is often part of a larger movement toward living in community, which

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

310 Bella DePaulo

includes, for example, the creation of cohousing communities and ecovillages, and, more informally, simply committing to making existing neighborhoods more neighborly (Living in Community Network, 2012; Manzella, 2010). The Living in Community Network explains that their vision is to “create sustainable communi-ties where we can live in a mutually supportive environment with others of like mind and shared values that enrich our lives through friendship, life-long learning, and civic engagement.”

Our choice of living situations is perhaps the most fundamental way in which we attempt to regulate the mix of time we spend alone versus with other people. The ideal ratio of time alone to time with others varies greatly from person to person. People who live alone may have more options to spend more time alone, whereas those who live with others may have more access to easy sociability. People who live alone in cities can walk out the door and see other people on the streets, but people who share a house can walk out their bedroom doors and see other people in the hallways, kitchen, and living room.

In cohousing, a concept brought from Denmark to the United States in the early 1990s by architect Charles Durrett (Durrett, 2009; McCamant & Durrett, 2011), a group of people come together to create a cluster of housing designed to foster community. Residences typically face an open, green space inaccessible to cars that is a safe place for kids to play and an inviting place for neighbors to chat. Each person­ or set of persons owns or rents their own living space; cohousing is not an old-style commune. Yet there are communal aspects. For example, cohousing communities include a common house in which community members share meals, typically a few times a week. Individual households have their own ­kitchens, so members can prepare their own meals when they are not dining in the common house. Cohousing members generate their own income at jobs that are not part of the cohousing community. They are not making hammocks and tofu to sell in order to generate money for the community as a whole, as do the members of the Twin Oaks commune (based roughly on B. F. Skinner’s Walden two (Skinner, 1948/1976)). Cohousing communities do, though, try to maintain a nonhierarchi-cal structure in which everyone shares in decision-making and helps to maintain the common grounds.

The Census Bureau definitions of types of households do not fully capture the psychology of different living situations. The person who lives alone in a single-family detached dwelling in a sprawling suburb and the person who owns a home of their own in a cohousing community are both counted as living in one-person households. Yet the two have very different experiences of community and prob-ably of solitude, too.

The various ways that we live comprise one of the most understudied and underappreciated components of solitude. How we achieve or avoid soli-tude and how we experience it have a lot to do with the living arrangements of our lives.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 311

The Experience of Loneliness: Does Marrying Make

You Less Vulnerable?

Review articles sometimes claim that marriage is linked to lower levels of loneliness­ (e.g., Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005). Results reported in the original sources cited in those reviews, though (e.g., de Jong-Gierveld, 1987; Tornstam, 1992), are not so persuasive. The data are cross-sectional, and all categories of unmarried people (always single, divorced, and widowed) are compared to the currently married. If, for example, the previously married are lonelier than the people who had always been single, then the risk factor for loneliness may be getting married and then unmarried, rather than staying single.

Even studies in which the previously married and the always single are lumped together and compared to the currently married do not always provide compel-ling evidence for the claim that marriage is associated with less loneliness. In research by Hawkey and her colleagues (2008), for example, the currently married did not differ overall from the currently unmarried. Only if just a subset of the married people was included – those who considered their spouse to be a ­confidant – did the married people report less loneliness than the unmarried. (For a more detailed discussion of cross-sectional studies of marital status and ­loneliness, see DePaulo, 2011a.)

Longitudinal studies of changes in loneliness as adults transition from being single to married would be particularly relevant to the question of the implications of getting married for loneliness. So far as I know, no such study exists. However, there is longitudinal research on older people who become widowed, stay ­married, or stay single over time. For example, in 1992, more than 3800 Dutch adults ranging­ in age from 55 to 84 years were asked about their experiences of loneliness in a face-to-face interview. Follow-up interviews were conducted 1, 3, and then 7 years later (Dykstra, van Tilburg, & de Jong Gierveld, 2005). On average, the partici-pants became lonelier with age. The greatest increases in loneliness over time were reported by those who had become widowed. People who remained partnered described larger increments in loneliness than those who stayed single. However, not all of the Dutch elders became lonelier as they aged. Those whose social networks­ had expanded became less lonely, regardless of marital status. In a smaller cross-sectional study of Dutch seniors between 65 and 75 years old, Dykstra (1995) also found that loneliness was linked not to being single but to having­ little support from friends.

The Dykstra (1995) study included important measures missing from other research on marital status and loneliness – assessments of participants’ attitudes toward single and married life. The older people without a partner who valued single life for the opportunities it offers for autonomy and personal development were unlikely to be lonely. In contrast, those single seniors who believed that life is empty or incomplete without a partner were more often lonely.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

312 Bella DePaulo

The Experience of Spending Time Alone among the Single at Heart

Research in which people are asked to report on their feelings of loneliness does not directly address the question of how time spent alone is experienced. People can feel lonely regardless of their marital or relationship status and regardless of whether they are currently in the presence of other people or even interacting with others. A positive experience of solitude is not just an absence of loneliness (Averill & Sundararajan, Chapter 6, this volume; Korpela & Staats, Chapter 20, this volume). People who love their solitude might embrace their time alone. To them, solitude may feel more like a need than a mere preference (see Averill & Sundararajan, Chapter 6, this volume; Korpela & Staats, Chapter 20, this volume).

Is there any evidence, though, that people who say that they like spending time alone are really savoring the experience and not just avoiding other people? Are they running toward solitude or away from other people? In a correlational study, Leary and his colleagues (Leary, Herbst, & McCrary, 2003) asked college students how often they participated in various activities on their own and how much they enjoyed them. The students also completed a battery of scales measuring ­interpersonal orientation (such as extraversion, affiliation, and sociability) and ­orientation toward solitude (such as a preference for doing things alone and a desire for peaceful aloneness). They found that people who engaged in activities on their own and enjoyed them were drawn to solitude in a positive way more than they were simply uninterested in spending time with other people.

If this is not the first psychology article you have ever read, you know what sentence­ comes next: more research is needed. The direction I wanted to take the research was to investigate the experience of solitude among people who are and are not single at heart. I’m just beginning to develop and validate the concept of single at heart, so I can offer only preliminary data. I posted an online survey titled Are you single at heart? and analyzed results from the first 1200 respondents. The sample was not a representative one; participants learned about the survey from my web site, blogs, and Facebook.

Participants indicated their single-at-heart status by reading the description in the following text and placing themselves into one of four categories:

This quiz is a first step toward identifying people who are single at heart. If you are single at heart, single life suits you. You are not single because you have “issues” or just haven’t found a partner yet. Instead, living single is a way for you to lead your most ­meaningful and authentic life. Even people who are not single may be single at heart. Do you think you are single at heart?

The four response options were (i) yes; (ii) in more than a few ways, yes, but not all; (iii) maybe in a few ways, but mostly not; and (iv) no. In the survey, participants also answered more than a dozen questions about topics such as their preferences

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 313

for making decisions on their own versus with a partner, for attending events on their own versus with other people, and the importance to them of work that is meaningful. Only in response to one question, though, did more than 90% of the people in both single-at-heart categories (mostly single at heart and yes, single at heart) endorse the same response. That was the question about solitude.

The wording was: “When you think about spending time alone, what thought comes to mind first?” Response alternatives were “Ah, sweet solitude” and “Oh, no, I might be lonely!” The percentages in each category choosing “sweet solitude” were 99% among the “Yes, single at heart”; 95% among the “Mostly single at heart”; 76% among the “Mostly not single at heart”; and 56% among the “No, not single at heart.”

Participants were also invited to explain, in their own words, why they thought that they were or were not single at heart. Again and again, those who classified them-selves as definitely single at heart wrote about the importance of having time alone. Some said they like it and enjoy it; others insisted that they need it. Some explained why solitude was important to them, noting, for example, that they felt most centered or most authentic when alone or that they savored the peacefulness of solitude (see also Long & Averill, 2003; Long, Seburn, Averill, & More, 2003; Pedersen, 1999).

Conclusions

What does it mean to be single in a society preoccupied with coupling? Depending on how you count, being single may or may not be normative, but it is certainly increasingly commonplace, not only in the United States but many other Western societies. Stereotypes of singles still persist, but they are less harsh than they once were. When myths about single people are compared to the realities, the myths do not fare so well. For example, there is little evidence that marrying transforms lonely single people into loneliness-free couples.

In fact, single people are in some ways more connected to friends, neighbors, sib-lings, and parents than are people who are married. People who become coupled spend less time with friends than they did when they were single, but it is not yet clear whether they are disproportionately marginalizing their friends who are single.

In a society in which weddings and couplings and marriage are so celebrated and so hyped, it might be understandable if people were reluctant to go to ­restaurants and other public venues on their own. Wouldn’t they be stigmatized as losers who cannot manage to find any companionship? The one systematic study of the matter found no evidence to buttress such fears. Adults are judged no more harshly when they are alone in a restaurant than when they are with one or more other people.

Preliminary evidence suggests that people who are single at heart are ­particularly likely to seek and savor time alone. One way they can find more time to be alone is to live alone. There has been a remarkable rise in solo living over the past dec-ades. In recent years, there has also been an uptick in the number of people sharing a home with people other than a spouse or partner.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

314 Bella DePaulo

I think that the complexities of the trends on marital status, living arrangements,­

and attitudes toward time alone point to the importance of choice. More so than at any time in recent history, many Americans can choose whether to stay single or get married, whether to live alone or with other people, and whether to spend a lot of time alone. Conventions and traditions still look more kindly upon the coupled and the sociable than the singles and the solitude seekers, so the cultural context is more welcoming to the former. Slowly, though, attitudes seem to be changing.

The study of solitude, especially as experienced by single people in societies preoccupied with couples, has much potential. There is much more to learn about some of the most fundamental questions. For example, what are the implications of spending time alone or of living single for those who have chosen those experiences­ relative to those who have not? How do living arrangements facilitate access to an optimal mix of time alone and time with other people? Are there really people who are single at heart (validation studies are needed), and if so, do they savor their time alone more than people who are not single at heart?

References

Amos, J. (2010, September 15). Falling in love costs you friends. BBC News. Retrieved August 5, 2013, from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Cacioppo, J., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York: Norton.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2005). People thinking about people: The vicious cycle of being an outcast in one’s own mind. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying

(pp. 91–108). New York: Psychology Press.

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New York: Crown. DePaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still

live happily ever after. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

DePaulo, B. (2011a). Living single: Lightening up those dark, dopey myths. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 409–439). New York: Routledge.

DePaulo, B. (2011b). Singlism: What it is, why it matters, and how to stop it. Charleston, SC: DoubleDoor Books.

DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 57–83.

DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 251–254.

Durrett, C. (2009). The senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Dykstra, P. A. (1995). Loneliness among the never and formerly married: The importance of supportive friendships and a desire for independence. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50, S321–S329.

Dykstra, P. A., van Tilburg, T. G., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2005). Changes in older adult loneliness: Results from a seven-year longitudinal study. Research on Aging, 27, 725–747.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples 315

Gerstel, N., & Sarkisian, N. (2006). Marriage: The good, the bad, and the greedy. Contexts, 5, 16–21.

Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 165–168.

Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Stereotypes of singles: Are singles what we think? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 368–383.

Hawkley, L. C., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Masi, C. M., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). From social structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: The Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, S375–S384.

Hayden, D. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: Gender, housing, and family life. New York: Norton.

Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. (1982). Couple involvement and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 34–43.

de Jong-Gierveld, J. (1987). Developing and testing a model of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 119–128.

Kalmijn, M. (2003). Friendship networks over the life course: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis using survey data. Social Networks, 25, 231–249.

Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York: Penguin.

Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCrary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 59–68.

Living in Community Network. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://www. livingincommunity.net/index.html

Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 33, 21–44.

Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties, settings, and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 578–583.

Manzella, J. C. (2010). Common purse, uncommon future: The long, strange trip of communes and other intentional communities. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Marks, N. F. (1996). Flying solo at midlife: Gender, marital status, and psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 917–932.

McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable communities. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Milardo, R. M. (1987). Changes in social networks of women and men following divorce: A review. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 78–96.

Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 964–976.

Morgan, D., Carder, P., & Neal, M. (1997). Are some relationships more useful than others? The value of similar others in the networks of recent widows. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 745–759.

Morris, W. L., DePaulo, B., Hertel, J., & Ritter, L. C. (2008). Singlism – another problem that has no name: Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination against singles.

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.

316 Bella DePaulo

In T. G. Morrison & M. A. Morrison (Eds.), The psychology of modern prejudice (pp. 165–194). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1–18.

Mykyta, L., & Macartney, S. (2012, June). Sharing a household: Household composition and economic well-being: 2007–2010. Consumer Income. Current Population Report

(pp. 60–242). Spauldings, MD: Census Bureau of the United States.

Pedersen, D. M. (1999). Model for types of privacy by privacy functions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 397–405.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Riesman, D. (1963). The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Roberts, S. (2007, January 16). 51% of women are now living without spouse. The New York Times.

Rufus, A. (2003). Party of one: The loners’ manifesto. New York: Marlowe. Skinner, B. F. (1948/1976). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.

Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 357–375.

Tornstam, L. (1992). Loneliness in marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 197–217.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Current population survey, March and annual social and economic supplements, 2006 and earlier, Table HH-1.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Current Population Survey, March 2011, Table H2.

.reserved rightsAll

.Incorporated Sons,&

WileyJohn .2014

©Copyright

Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (Eds.) . (2014). The handbook of solitude : Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from molloy on 2020-05-27 05:34:36.