this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
143 points (94.4% liked)

Science

3219 readers
270 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopy.12929

From the linked article:

Are all single people insecure? When we think about people who have been single for a long time, we may assume it’s because single people have insecurities that make it difficult for them to find a partner or maintain a relationship.

But is this true? Or can long-term single people also be secure and thriving?

Our latest research published in the Journal of Personality suggests they can. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, not everybody tends to thrive in singlehood. Our study shows a crucial factor may be a person’s attachment style.

Singlehood is on the rise

Singlehood is on the rise around the world. In Canada, single status among young adults aged 25 to 29 has increased from 32% in 1981 to 61% in 2021. The number of people living solo has increased from 1.7 million people in 1981 to 4.4 million in 2021.

At the same time, evidence suggests many single people are choosing to remain single and living happy lives.

Looking at our results more closely, we found four distinct subgroups of singles:

secure singles are relatively comfortable with intimacy and closeness in relationships (22%)

anxious singles question whether they are loved by others and worry about being rejected (37%)

avoidant singles are uncomfortable getting close to others and prioritise their independence (23% of younger singles and 11% of older long-term singles)

fearful singles have heightened anxiety about abandonment, but are simultaneously uncomfortable with intimacy and closeness (16% of younger singles and 28% of older long-term singles).

These findings should be considered alongside several relevant points. First, although most singles in our samples were insecure (78%), a sizeable number were secure and thriving (22%).

Further, simply being in a romantic relationship is not a panacea. Being in an unhappy relationship is linked to poorer life outcomes than being single.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The title seems a bit misleading when 4/5 are unhappy

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

"Insecure" isn't quite the same as "unhappy", plus how many people in relationships are happy?

Also as it mentions, being with the wrong person is far worse than being alone.

Still, yeah that second sentence in the title is a bit disconnected from the first sentence, even if technically the truth.

Edit: this title is not the title of the article - interesting. That is just what was used here on Lemmy. The real title of the actual article is "Would you be happy as a long-term single? The answer may depend on your attachment style."

[–] 3volver 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The study falls short having no comparison to non-single people who are insecure. If the percentage of insecure non-single people is also 78% then being single has no impact on insecurity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That comparison was apparently done previously.

The limited work on attachment and singlehood has produced inconsistent results (see Pepping et al., 2018 for a review) but suggests that single people are, on average, more insecure than those in relationships (Chopik et al., 2013).

Oh but I see what you mean - the "secure" sub-group(s) in this study would have strongly benefitted from that comparison yes. But it gets more complicated b/c the terms they chose to use aren't really the English-meaning of those words like "secure", but rather "low attachment-avoidance and low anxiety", hence insecure isn't a single category but three (anxious, avoidant, and fearful-avoidant).

Anyway the comparison to non-singleness could be a future follow-up study:-).