#Main Factors: Gender | Personality | External Circumstances and Age | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Forty percent of Tumblr users are between the ages of 18 to 25.

#Main Factors: Gender | Personality | External Circumstances and Age

xtruss · 9 months

Text

The U-Bend of Life! Why, Beyond Middle Age, People Get Happier As They Get Older

— December 16th 2010 | Wednesday 16th August 2023 | Christmas Specials | Age and happiness

ASK people how they feel about getting older, and they will probably reply in the same vein as Maurice Chevalier: “Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.” Stiffening joints, weakening muscles, fading eyesight and the clouding of memory, coupled with the modern world's careless contempt for the old, seem a fearful prospect—better than death, perhaps, but not much. Yet mankind is wrong to dread ageing. Life is not a long slow decline from sunlit uplands towards the valley of death. It is, rather, a U-bend.

When people start out on adult life, they are, on average, pretty cheerful. Things go downhill from youth to middle age until they reach a nadir commonly known as the mid-life crisis. So far, so familiar. The surprising part happens after that. Although as people move towards old age they lose things they treasure—vitality, mental sharpness and looks—they also gain what people spend their lives pursuing: happiness.

This curious finding has emerged from a new branch of economics that seeks a more satisfactory measure than money of human well-being. Conventional economics uses money as a proxy for utility—the dismal way in which the discipline talks about happiness. But some economists, unconvinced that there is a direct relationship between money and well-being, have decided to go to the nub of the matter and measure happiness itself.

These ideas have penetrated the policy arena, starting in Bhutan, where the concept of Gross National Happiness shapes the planning process. All new policies have to have a GNH assessment, similar to the environmental-impact assessment common in other countries. In 2008 France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, asked two Nobel-prize-winning economists, Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, to come up with a broader measure of national contentedness than GDP. Then last month, in a touchy-feely gesture not typical of Britain, David Cameron announced that the British government would start collecting figures on well-being.

There are already a lot of data on the subject collected by, for instance, America's General Social Survey, Eurobarometer and Gallup. Surveys ask two main sorts of question. One concerns people's assessment of their lives, and the other how they feel at any particular time. The first goes along the lines of: thinking about your life as a whole, how do you feel? The second is something like: yesterday, did you feel happy/contented/angry/anxious? The first sort of question is said to measure global well-being, and the second hedonic or emotional well-being. They do not always elicit the same response: having children, for instance, tends to make people feel better about their life as a whole, but also increases the chance that they felt angry or anxious yesterday.

Statisticians trawl through the vast quantities of data these surveys produce rather as miners panning for gold. They are trying to find the answer to the perennial question: what makes people happy?

Four main factors, it seems: gender, personality, external circumstances and age. Women, by and large, are slightly happier than men. But they are also more susceptible to depression: a fifth to a quarter of women experience depression at some point in their lives, compared with around a tenth of men. Which suggests either that women are more likely to experience more extreme emotions, or that a few women are more miserable than men, while most are more cheerful.

Two personality traits shine through the complexity of economists' regression analyses: neuroticism and extroversion. Neurotic people—those who are prone to guilt, anger and anxiety—tend to be unhappy. This is more than a tautological observation about people's mood when asked about their feelings by pollsters or economists. Studies following people over many years have shown that neuroticism is a stable personality trait and a good predictor of levels of happiness. Neurotic people are not just prone to negative feelings: they also tend to have low emotional intelligence, which makes them bad at forming or managing relationships, and that in turn makes them unhappy.

Whereas neuroticism tends to make for gloomy types, extroversion does the opposite. Those who like working in teams and who relish parties tend to be happier than those who shut their office doors in the daytime and hole up at home in the evenings. This personality trait may help explain some cross-cultural differences: a study comparing similar groups of British, Chinese and Japanese people found that the British were, on average, both more extrovert and happier than the Chinese and Japanese.

Then there is the role of circumstance. All sorts of things in people's lives, such as relationships, education, income and health, shape the way they feel. Being married gives people a considerable uplift, but not as big as the gloom that springs from being unemployed. In America, being black used to be associated with lower levels of happiness—though the most recent figures suggest that being black or Hispanic is nowadays associated with greater happiness. People with children in the house are less happy than those without. More educated people are happier, but that effect disappears once income is controlled for. Education, in other words, seems to make people happy because it makes them richer. And richer people are happier than poor ones—though just how much is a source of argument.

The View From Winter

Lastly, there is age. Ask a bunch of 30-year-olds and another of 70-year-olds (as Peter Ubel, of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, did with two colleagues, Heather Lacey and Dylan Smith, in 2006) which group they think is likely to be happier, and both lots point to the 30-year-olds. Ask them to rate their own well-being, and the 70-year-olds are the happier bunch. The academics quoted lyrics written by Pete Townshend of The Who when he was 20: “Things they do look awful cold / Hope I die before I get old”. They pointed out that Mr Townshend, having passed his 60th birthday, was writing a blog that glowed with good humour.

Mr Townshend may have thought of himself as a youthful radical, but this view is ancient and conventional. The “seven ages of man”—the dominant image of the life-course in the 16th and 17th centuries—was almost invariably conceived as a rise in stature and contentedness to middle age, followed by a sharp decline towards the grave. Inverting the rise and fall is a recent idea. “A few of us noticed the U-bend in the early 1990s,” says Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick Business School. “We ran a conference about it, but nobody came.”

Since then, interest in the U-bend has been growing. Its effect on happiness is significant—about half as much, from the nadir of middle age to the elderly peak, as that of unemployment. It appears all over the world. David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College, and Mr Oswald looked at the figures for 72 countries. The nadir varies among countries—Ukrainians, at the top of the range, are at their most miserable at 62, and Swiss, at the bottom, at 35—but in the great majority of countries people are at their unhappiest in their 40s and early 50s. The global average is 46.

The U-bend shows up in studies not just of global well-being but also of hedonic or emotional well-being. One paper, published this year by Arthur Stone, Joseph Schwartz and Joan Broderick of Stony Brook University, and Angus Deaton of Princeton, breaks well-being down into positive and negative feelings and looks at how the experience of those emotions varies through life. Enjoyment and happiness dip in middle age, then pick up; stress rises during the early 20s, then falls sharply; worry peaks in middle age, and falls sharply thereafter; anger declines throughout life; sadness rises slightly in middle age, and falls thereafter.

Turn the question upside down, and the pattern still appears. When the British Labour Force Survey asks people whether they are depressed, the U-bend becomes an arc, peaking at 46.

Happier, No Matter What

There is always a possibility that variations are the result not of changes during the life-course, but of differences between cohorts. A 70-year-old European may feel different to a 30-year-old not because he is older, but because he grew up during the second world war and was thus formed by different experiences. But the accumulation of data undermines the idea of a cohort effect. Americans and Zimbabweans have not been formed by similar experiences, yet the U-bend appears in both their countries. And if a cohort effect were responsible, the U-bend would not show up consistently in 40 years' worth of data.

Another possible explanation is that unhappy people die early. It is hard to establish whether that is true or not; but, given that death in middle age is fairly rare, it would explain only a little of the phenomenon. Perhaps the U-bend is merely an expression of the effect of external circumstances. After all, common factors affect people at different stages of the life-cycle. People in their 40s, for instance, often have teenage children. Could the misery of the middle-aged be the consequence of sharing space with angry adolescents? And older people tend to be richer. Could their relative contentment be the result of their piles of cash?

The answer, it turns out, is no: control for cash, employment status and children, and the U-bend is still there. So the growing happiness that follows middle-aged misery must be the result not of external circumstances but of internal changes.

People, studies show, behave differently at different ages. Older people have fewer rows and come up with better solutions to conflict. They are better at controlling their emotions, better at accepting misfortune and less prone to anger. In one study, for instance, subjects were asked to listen to recordings of people supposedly saying disparaging things about them. Older and younger people were similarly saddened, but older people less angry and less inclined to pass judgment, taking the view, as one put it, that “you can't please all the people all the time.”

There are various theories as to why this might be so. Laura Carstensen, professor of psychology at Stanford University, talks of “the uniquely human ability to recognise our own mortality and monitor our own time horizons”. Because the old know they are closer to death, she argues, they grow better at living for the present. They come to focus on things that matter now—such as feelings—and less on long-term goals. “When young people look at older people, they think how terrifying it must be to be nearing the end of your life. But older people know what matters most.” For instance, she says, “young people will go to cocktail parties because they might meet somebody who will be useful to them in the future, even though nobody I know actually likes going to cocktail parties.”

Death of Ambition, Birth of Acceptance

There are other possible explanations. Maybe the sight of contemporaries keeling over infuses survivors with a determination to make the most of their remaining years. Maybe people come to accept their strengths and weaknesses, give up hoping to become chief executive or have a picture shown in the Royal Academy, and learn to be satisfied as assistant branch manager, with their watercolour on display at the church fete. “Being an old maid”, says one of the characters in a story by Edna Ferber, an (unmarried) American novelist, was “like death by drowning—a really delightful sensation when you ceased struggling.” Perhaps acceptance of ageing itself is a source of relief. “How pleasant is the day”, observed William James, an American philosopher, “when we give up striving to be young—or slender.”

Whatever the causes of the U-bend, it has consequences beyond the emotional. Happiness doesn't just make people happy—it also makes them healthier. John Weinman, professor of psychiatry at King's College London, monitored the stress levels of a group of volunteers and then inflicted small wounds on them. The wounds of the least stressed healed twice as fast as those of the most stressed. At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Sheldon Cohen infected people with cold and flu viruses. He found that happier types were less likely to catch the virus, and showed fewer symptoms of illness when they did. So although old people tend to be less healthy than younger ones, their cheerfulness may help counteract their crumbliness.

Happier people are more productive, too. Mr Oswald and two colleagues, Eugenio Proto and Daniel Sgroi, cheered up a bunch of volunteers by showing them a funny film, then set them mental tests and compared their performance to groups that had seen a neutral film, or no film at all. The ones who had seen the funny film performed 12% better. This leads to two conclusions. First, if you are going to volunteer for a study, choose the economists' experiment rather than the psychologists' or psychiatrists'. Second, the cheerfulness of the old should help counteract their loss of productivity through declining cognitive skills—a point worth remembering as the world works out how to deal with an ageing workforce.

The ageing of the rich world is normally seen as a burden on the economy and a problem to be solved. The U-bend argues for a more positive view of the matter. The greyer the world gets, the brighter it becomes—a prospect which should be especially encouraging to Economist readers (average age 47).

— This article appeared in the Christmas Specials section of the print edition under the headline "The U-Bend of Life"

0 notes

crimsoncondor · 4 years

Text

Kakegurui: Psychological Analysis of Midari Ikishima (Anime)

Color Symbolism Theory:

https://bloodorangesangria.tumblr.com/post/164215619840/kakegurui-color-theory-midari-ikishima-purple

Refer to Card 41 (Sexual Masochism Disorder [SMD]) in the following set:

https://quizlet.com/340466138/abnormal-psychology-sexual-disorders-flash-cards/

DSM-5 criteria supports the notion Midari experiences SMD symptoms:

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/sexuality,-gender-dysphoria,-and-paraphilias/sexual-masochism-disorder

This is a description of the ESTP personality type:

https://www.16personalities.com/estp-personality

Pathological gambling presents itself in ways akin to Midari's derangement:

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/a-study-on-pathological-gambling-as-an-addiction-psychology-essay.php

(Note the latter source is theoretical. It is possible psychosexual and nurture-related factors contribute to gambling addiction.)

The neuroscience behind pathological gambling indirectly aligns with Midari's mindsets and functions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858640/

Footnotes:

Midari has dealt with anhedonia and hedonism for years and submitted to her innate impulses in extreme portions to reassure herself she is human. Nobody seems to care for her due to her erratic mannerisms and regular exposure to individuals with apathetic tendencies such as Kirari and Runa, so she has felt outcasted. She also seems largely disinterested in others because of this treatment, but she is ecstatic in the presence of Jabami, whom she believes can understand her. This perceived lack of belonging has resulted in suicidal thoughts and an identity crisis, but somewhere in the back of her mind, she wishes to live, so she continually lingers on the verge of life and death through gambling. When deprived of this pleasure she forces on herself, Midari displays mania such as during her altercation with Erimi in Season 2, Episode 2. As a sexually developed teenager who never receives affection from others, she will naturally be perverted to some extent, but this is amplified by her other baggage. The scene in Season 1 where she removes her own eye in front of Kirari to repay debt perfectly summarizes her duality, hardships, and contradiction.

Her occasionally slurred and dramatic speech further defends the idea she is disinterested in her environment, but it may also indicate a disability. She appears slightly deformed, but this may be untrue considering most of the characters possess unusual designs, and she is very simplistic, narrow-minded, and instinctive, which is typical of people with limited cognitive capacities, albeit this is probably linked to her other issues as well. There are some occasions where Midari exposes the insecurities of other characters in a blunt but accurate way like in her conversation with Yumemi in Season 2, Episode 5 and description of Sayaka's past, but this rarely occurs because she is frequently lost in her own thoughts or unfeeling for people. It is somewhat possible her unhealthy fixations mask genuine intellect. At minimum, she is immature given her age.

Midari's design is a combination of both stylish and unkempt, which means she likely attempts to charm men but is not very talented at it, either due to a lack of interest, poor motor skills, or a misunderstanding of the desires of others in comparison to her own. She projects her lust onto others because it is the sole sensation she knows, and she wishes for her peers to savor the same pleasure, which is similar to Jabami's perspective on gambling. This is one of the main reasons Midari resonates with her. This in some regards presents itself as a lesbian infatuation with her, and her design slightly reflects this due to its faintly tomboyish features. Her voice is a tad androgynous, which may be deliberate as it is with many lesbians. Her assymetrical eyes may symbolize her paradoxical existence --- with the bare eye representing the external and the concealed eye signifying the internal. From a general view, it could represent her duality as a whole rather than specific contrasts or vice versa. Her headpiece has hearts on it, implying she needs love but is warped in the head. Midari is visibly desperate and isolated, so she may be accustomed to others' disgust towards her and unfamiliar with positive emotions like love. The pain of being loathed is one of the many miseries she lies to herself about; the woman convinces herself she enjoys it to cope. Nevertheless, she is not entirely unsympathetic, which is subtly insinuated by her investment in Jabami and lecture towards Yumemi about her absence of talent.

According to the Kakegurui wiki, "Midari" translates to "reckless" and "chaotic" while Ikishima means "hope", "aspiration", "intention", "motive", "plan", "resolve", "shilling", and "to wear". Midari's forename is obviously applicable to her behaviors, but her surname is enigmatic and ironic; she is unsure of her own objectives, yet it implies a sure sense of purpose. Combined with her forename, however, this is more sensible because her goals are stubborn, mad, and counterintuitive. On the other hand, the meaning "to wear" may allude to Midari's fashionable look and role. Additionally, the girl "wears" her abnormality like a badge of honor, and she is "worn" out because of her circumstances and hurdles.

Midari's personality type is almost indescribable, but the most prominent possibility is ESTP, also known as the Entrepreneur. She is a very unhealthy case, and she is somewhat ambiverted. Her position in the student council reflects a social nature, but this is not necessarily evidence in itself; she is talkative and desperate for affection, but the kind of attention she seeks is incomprehensible to most, so she tends to be isolated. She asserts herself in situations with methods others are throw off or often revolted by, never hesitating to scrutinize on the basis of her observations, which are frequently more accurate and insightful than what many of her peers could muster. This is displayed when she describes Sayaka to Yuriko and criticizes Yumemi's strategies for stardom. Unless her obsessions obstruct her ability to ruminate analytically, she is largely logical and unbiased, so her fundamental thought processes are more rational than emotional in everyday circumstances. Due to her overall disconnection from tangible, concrete reality and reliance on risks and probability, it is obvious she possesses many intuitive qualities, but these do not quite dominate her sensory ones. Midari usually approaches casual issues pragmatically and with tactility; she views personal experience as her primary method of comprehension and views these events as snapshots of a greater picture. Midari improvises much of the time and does not seem to limit herself to a timetable or routine, so her prospecting traits overpower her judging traits. The girl's unstable and inconsistent reactions render her fifth letter a T rather than an A. Hence, her acronym stands for "Extroverted, Observant, Thinking, Prospecting, Turbulent". Considering the severe but immeasurable despair she has experienced over the years, her personality has slightly changed, albeit she was clearly demented from the beginning. The enneagram personality test is highly controversial, and the alignment chart is rather one-dimensional, so neither shall be used for her. However, via the latter system, Midari would certainly be chaotic.

Midari is not directly connected to Kakegurui's themes, but she is one of the worst possible products of them. She is the outcome of oppression caused by capitalism and Christianity when left to their own devices.

#kakegurui midari ikishima psychological analysis

19 notes · View notes

dizagitova · 4 years

Text

The impact of personality on job and life satisfaction among young professionals in Russia

Literature review

Introduction and background

The main purpose is to explore the relationship between the big five personality traits, employee engagement, and both job and life satisfaction. We will contribute to the personality and work engagement literature by examining the influence that personality traits have on satisfaction with life which mediates job satisfaction that in turn impacts their work engagement.

Work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption.

The Big Five traits: agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism.

Demographic factors: gender, age, job, city, level of management, salary, job experience, education level, marital status.

Working definitions

The Big Five personality traits include agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism. BFI-scale was created by John and Srivastava in 1999.

Personality is a set of characteristics that reflects everyone’s individuality, which tends to be changed depending on external influence.

Big five personality traits:

o Neuroticism is characterized by “individuals prone to psychological distress, unrealistic ideas, excessive cravings or urges, and maladaptive coping responses”, according to Crown (2007 cited in Bueno, 2019). Regarding employees’ job neuroticism as explained by Langelaan et al., (2006) tends to be associated with negative affect and negative affect has been linked with lower levels of job satisfaction (Connolly, Viswesvaran, 2000).

o Extraversion is characterized by “the intensity of interpersonal interaction including activity level, need for stimulation, and capacity for joy” by Crown (2007 cited in Bueno, 2019).

o Openness to experience is characterized by “proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake, toleration for an exploration of the unfamiliar” by Crown (2007 cited in Bueno, 2019).

o Agreeableness is characterized by “the quality of one's interpersonal orientation along a continuum from compassion to antagonism in thoughts, feelings, and action”s by Crown (2007 cited in Bueno, 2019).

o Conscientiousness is characterized by “the degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-directed behavior”, it “contrasts dependable, fastidious people with those who are lackadaisical and sloppy”, according to Crown (2007 as cited in Bueno, 2019).

Person-organization fit (P-O fit) is an area “whose concern is the antecedents and consequences of compatibility between people and the organizations in which they work” (Farooquia, Nagendra, 2014) or a “match between the individual and the organizational environment” (Mandalaki, Islamb, Lagowskac, et al., 2019).

Job satisfaction is defined as “positive feeling about one’s work and work setting” by Schermerhon et al. (2011). According to Hoppock (1935, cited in Bueno, 2019) satisfaction is “a combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say, "I am satisfied with my job".

Life satisfaction is a “global assessment of a person's quality of life per his or her chosen criteria” (Shin, Johnson, 1978).

Work engagement is “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor (i.e. high levels of energy and mental resilience), dedication (i.e., exceptionally strong involvement in one's work), and absorption (i.e., being totally engrossed in one's work)” (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002). A shortened version was made by Schaufeli, Shimazu, Hakanen, Salanova, et al. (2017).

Big Five personality traits

“Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.” (Out of the Crisis, by W. Edwards Deming)

Organizations constantly make changes that they need in daily life, but those changes should be compatible with their workers. Humans are difficult creations, and, depending on how employees are satisfied with their life and job, it might influence how they respond to items in the Big five inventory. If they are satisfied with their life, they tend to be more satisfied with their work, hence they are more engaged at work. Thus, organizations should be able to understand the personality traits that makeup who our employees are and how their personality traits influence their fit to the organization, how they are engaged at work. In 1949, the first model known as "Big Five" personality traits was made by Fiske. The five factors were social adaptability, conformity, will to achieve, emotional control, and inquiring intellect. McCrae, Costa (1987) have recently developed a method of data collection the NEO Personality Inventory to measure the Big Five personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

How personality traits influence life and job satisfaction

Several studies tell us that the Big five personality traits strongly impact our feeling of satisfaction. But the questions about which traits influence much more significant and with what impact, positive or negative, depending on each case. These questions will be hopefully investigated in our research. For example, Judge’s cross-country analysis (2002), focused mainly on Western countries, showed us that extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness became significant predictors of job satisfaction among employees. Zhai, Willis, et al., (2013) claimed that among all the Big five personality traits, just extraversion was significantly related to job satisfaction. Templer (2012) in his research notiсed the importance of such Big Five personality traits as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism because they were in strong relation with job satisfaction. Several studies highlighted the low level of neuroticism when the higher state levels of job satisfaction were obtained (McCann, 2018; Chandra, et al., 2017). Connolly, Viswesvaran (2000) stated that “extraversion is associated with positive emotions, and positive emotions generalize to job satisfaction”, that one more time proved that there is a strong connection between personality and satisfaction. At the same time, Iorga, M., Dondas, C., et al. (2017) in their research identified that neuroticism and extraversion were mostly related to job satisfaction, while agreeableness and conscientiousness were less related and there was no relationship between job satisfaction and openness to experience. However, Bui (2017) in his study didn’t find any connections between extraversion and job satisfaction, which contradicts previous research. McCrae, Costa (1991) argued that “agreeable individuals have greater motivation to achieve interpersonal intimacy, which leads to higher levels of well-being, which positively relates to life satisfaction”. Following this assumption, Judge (2002) stated "that the same process should operate regarding job satisfaction. Conscientiousness is related to job satisfaction because it “represents a general work involvement tendency that leads to a higher likelihood of obtaining satisfying work rewards” (Organ, Lingl, 1995). Moreover, a number of authors have reported that conscientiousness demonstrated a positive influence on job satisfaction as well as agreeableness (DeNeve, Cooper, 1998; Judge, 2002; Connolly, Viswesvaran, 2000). Judge (2002) also stated that neuroticism had the strongest negative correlation with job satisfaction, which is followed by conscientiousness and extraversion with a positive correlation with job satisfaction.

The mediating role of person-organizational fit

It is strongly important to have a good person-organization fit. There is a large volume of published studies describing the mediating role of P-O fit between personality factors and life and job satisfaction. According to the research of Farooquia, Nagendra (2014), P-O fit remains a strong factor in determining job satisfaction and the performance of the employees. It significantly correlates with employee work engagement and illustrates “the alignment between organizational and individual norms and values” (Biswas, Bhatnagar, 2013; Prasasti, Tiarani, et al., 2019). P-O fit also leads to positive attitudinal outcomes, it reduces anxiety and increases individual commitment and involvement (O’Reilly III, Chatman, Caldwell, 1991; Posner, 1992; Vancouver, Schmitt, 1991; Chung, Im, Kim, 2019). Chen, Sparrow, Cooper (2016) noticed that P-O fit positively predicts job satisfaction by improving the working state for the more harmonious organization of management for employees. Researchers highlighted that “the relationship between P-O fit and job satisfaction is indirectly linked through job stress”, which is important for practical implications of person-organization fit concept (Chen, Sparrow, Cooper, 2016). It was also highlighted that “employees who have an organization fit will follow all organizational cultures without complaining, also work harder and give better results to the organization because their needs are met by the organization” (Farooquia, Nagendra, 2014). Herkes, Ellis, Churruca, Braithwaite, (2019) stated a significant role of P-O fit in the relationship with job satisfaction. It “reduces uncertainty and turnover intentions while increasing satisfaction, identification, and commitment toward their organization” (Chung, Im, Kim, 2020). P-O fit positively influences job satisfaction - 28 articles (Herkes, Churruca, Ellis, et al., 2019). One more research also noticed that P-O fit “enhances the effects of other-oriented motives that allow employees to further engage in constructive behaviors” for being compatible among colleagues” (Chung, Im, Kim, 2020). In addition, authors have found that “the relationship between organizational identification and job performance is enabled through P-O fit” (Mandalaki,, Lagowska, Tobace, 2019). There is also the relationship between strong organizational support and job satisfaction which has been widely investigated by Cullen, Edwards, Casper, et al. (2014). In conclusion, we can say that p-o fit usually plays an important mediating role, that helps to deepen the research.

Work engagement

Much of the current literature on work engagement pays particular attention to its connection with Big five personality factors (Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen et al., 2005; Watson, Clark, 1992; Kim, Shin, Swanger 2009; Inceoglu, Warr 2012). For instance, Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, et al. (2006) established low neuroticism and high extraversion as the major influential variables for high work engagement among employees. Kim, Shin, Swanger (2009) said that “work engaged employees showed high scores of conscientiousness and non-work engaged showed high scores on neuroticism”. At the same time, Kim, Shin, Swanger (2009) in his research noticed that there is no influence of extraversion on work engagement. Detailed examination of big five personality traits by Zaidi, Wajid., et al. (2012) showed that all of them except neuroticism significantly influence work engagement. Christian, Slaughter (2007) found out that work engagement was positively related to job satisfaction. Attridge (2009) stated that organizations still struggle with keeping their employees engaged. Hence, there is still a need to deepen knowledge of such phenomena and to investigate it more from different sides. Vallerand’s (2010) findings suggested that “work engagement is not merely a manner of high vs. low engagement rather the quality of engagement”. Furthermore, “when one is passionate about work, work becomes an integrated part of one's self” (Vallerand, Lafrenière, 2012). Arnett (2015) stated that “young professionals are eager to find engaging work that they can enjoy, and to do something important that can make some kind of positive contribution to the world around them”. According to Islam, (2014) “the organizational commitment, job content and job involvement have a direct effect on job satisfaction”. Djoemadi, Setiawan, Noermijati, et al. (2019) proved that job satisfaction could increase work engagement. According to the article from Forbes: “Employee engagement and happiness is definitely one of the topics for modern management and the future of work, only 13% of employees are engaged and 87% are not” (Morgan, 2014). Boston Consulting Group surveyed over 200,000 people around the world in 2014 and found out that getting appreciated for their work was the most important factor for employee happiness, unlike a salary, that got the 8th place (Strack, Linden, Booker, et al., 2014). In 2014, the publication of Vybornov found that feedback had a major impact on job satisfaction among other factors, that one more time proved the results of a survey conducted by Boston Consulting Group. According to the opinion of researchers, “when people feel appreciated, their job satisfaction skyrockets” (Cullen, Edwards, Casper, Gue, 2014). Ward (2019) also highlighted that work itself and recognition were only predictors of job satisfaction among other factors. Also, an interesting fact is that Hakanen, Schaufeli (2012) noticed that work engagement could predict life satisfaction. Job and personal life aspects are in close connection to each other, therefore “private companies with high standards carefully provide and create contexts where personal and professional aspects develop in balance” (Iorga, Dondas, Ioan, et al., 2017). Consequently, the work-life balance is strongly related to our topic and can be used for further research.

Research questions and hypotheses

1. Do personality factors influence life and job satisfaction directly or mediated by p-o fit?

The first step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized direct connection between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and life and job satisfaction. The second step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized mediation role of p-o fit on the relationship between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and life and job satisfaction.

H 1: P-O fit mediates the relationship between personality traits and life and job satisfaction.

In line with the hypothesis, it is predicted that:

1) Extraversion has a positive influence on job satisfaction (Connolly, Viswesvaran, 2000; Zhai, Willis, et al., 2013), or maybe there will not be any correlation between extraversion and job satisfaction (Bui, 2017).

2) Conscientiousness has a strong positive influence on job satisfaction (DeNeve, Cooper, 1998; Judge, 2002; Connolly, Viswesvaran, 2000).

3) Agreeableness has a positive influence on job satisfaction (McCrae, Costa, 1991; Organ, Lingl, 1995; Judge, 2002) and agreeableness has a weak influence on job satisfaction (Iorga, M., Dondas, C., et al, 2017).

4) Neuroticism has a negative influence on job satisfaction (McCann, 2018; Chandra, et al., 2017; Iorga, M., Dondas, C., et al, 2017; Judge, 2002).

5) Openness to experience has an influence on job satisfaction (Judge, 2002; Templer, 2012). That contradicts the other author (Iorga, Dondas, et al., 2017).

6) P-O fit has a strong positive influence on job satisfaction (Herkes, Ellis, Churruca, et al., 2019; Herkes, Ellis, Churruca, Braithwaite, 2019; Chen, Sparrow, Cooper, 2016; Farooquia, Nagendra, 2014).

7) P-O fit has a strong positive influence on work engagement (O’Reilly, Chatman, Caldwell, 1991; Vancouver, Schmitt, 1991; Posner, 1992; Biswas, Bhatnagar, 2013; Chung, Im, Kim, 2019; Prasasti, Tiarani, et al., 2019)

2. Do personality factors influence job satisfaction directly or mediated by life satisfaction?

The third step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized direct connection between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and job satisfaction. The fourth step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized mediation role of life satisfaction on the influence between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and job satisfaction.

H2: Life satisfaction mediates the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.

3. Do personality factors influence work engagement directly or mediated by life satisfaction?

The fifth step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized direct connection between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and work engagement. The sixth step of the present study is to empirically examine the hypothesized mediation role of life satisfaction on the influence between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and work engagement.

H3: Life satisfaction mediates the relationship between personality traits and work engagement.

1) Personality traits have a strong positive influence on work engagement (Watson, Clark, 1992; Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen et al., 2005; Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, et al., 2006; Inceoglu, Warr, 2012; Vallerand, Lafrenière, 2012).

2) Low neuroticism has an influence on work engagement (Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, et al., 2006) or no influence of neuroticism on work engagement (Zaidi, Wajid., et al., 2012) .

3) High extraversion has an influence on work engagement (Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, et al., 2006; Kim, Shin, Swanger, 2009) or no influence of extraversion on work engagement (Kim, Shin, Swanger, 2009).

4) Conscientiousness has a strong positive influence on work engagement (Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen, et al., 2006).

5) All personality traits except neuroticism have strong positive influence on work engagement (Zaidi, Wajid., et al., 2012).

6) Work engagement has a strong positive influence on job satisfaction (Christian, Slaughter, 2007).

Data Collection Instruments

Data analysis

The survey design is a common method used by researchers to collect a large amount of data from different regions in the country. Online survey is more efficient than paper survey in terms of resources, cost and time, also it limits human error in data transcription and coding. We chose to survey respondents to better understand their personality and life satisfaction as well as perception of their companies. Survey was created to overview respondents’ personality traits, levels of their job and life satisfaction, person-organization fit in the company and work engagement level across all professional spheres, formally accepted in Russian Federation according to Rosstat, VCIOM, FOM and McKinsey statistical approaches. Respondents were young professionals from 18 to 40 years who worked in Russian companies. All the professional spheres and jobs were adopted from Headhunter.ru catalogue. Pre-test was made to sort through the appropriate respondents, including such factors as job (respondent should work right now) and age (respondent should be from 18 to 40 years old).

In order to obtain participants for a survey, the researchers used a snowballing-sampling methodology. Invitations were posted in social networks (VK, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn) on researcher’s pages and inside different professional communities of people (Skillbox, Dolina groups). Moreover, invitations were delivered across HSE study offices’ resources into students’ corporate emails and by professional contacts of authors and their academic supervisor. All answers were conducted using Google forms service, which provides free opportunity to overview target audience’s characteristics.

In addition, as it was introduced above, researchers used interviews for data collection to provide an additional qualitative overview of job and life satisfaction and work engagement among young managers to overcome possible biases of the research and understand them deeply.

Instruments

There were five scales of measuring that was used in the research containing 57 items with additional 15 items on demographic, geographic and professional measures of respondents and 1 item on agreeableness of further participation in the interview section.

1. It was aimed to measure the big five personality traits using the Big Five Inventory (BFI) scale (44 items; John, Naumann, Soto, 2008; Srivastava, 1998). The five personality factors that were measured by this scale include conscientiousness (9 items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.825), agreeableness (9 items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.581), neuroticism (8 items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.857), extraversion (8 items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.835) and openness (10 items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.828). In order to investigate respondents’ answers in Russia, there was a Russian version of BFI translated by (44 items; Shchebetenko, Weinstein, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are 0.82 for extraversion, 0.78 for neuroticism, 0.76 for conscientiousness and 0.78 for openness to experience. All BFI subscales were distributed normally, all KS d <.13, all p> .2

2. To measure work engagement, the current study uses the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3) (3 items; Schaufeli, Bakker, 2017). The UWES-3 scale has appropriate psychometric properties, with internal consistency reliability exceeding the accepted value of 0.70 (Schaufeli, Bakker, 2017).

3. To measure job satisfaction the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale (MOAQJS) was used (1 item; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, Klesh, 1979) with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging from 0.67 to 0.94.

4. Life satisfaction was measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (5 items; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, Sandvik, 1991). The SWLS scale shows good internal consistency and reliability when it is compared to other satisfaction with life scales (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, Sandvik, 1991). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the SWLS question vary from 0.61 to 0.81.

6. Finally, the person-organization fit was calculated on the base of P-O fit Questionnaire (4 items; Cable, DeRue, 2002). The Cronbach’s alpha score for this scale is 0.75 that indicated acceptable reliability.

Therefore, the entire study consisted of 73 items. Understanding of translation from English to Russian was tested on 5 respondents, who finished both English and Russian variants of the survey. Russian variant of survey was pre-tested on 10 respondents. The answers have been recorded using a 5-step Likert scale, where 1 means strong disagreement and 5 means strong agreement.

Data analysis

Before analyzing the results, the data was prepared and checked carefully in our study. Data were screened for missing values, outliers and testing for assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and homoscedasticity. Inter-item reliability and Pearson bivariate correlations were conducted to determine if any study variable showed no significant relationship with other variables and demonstrated poor internal consistency. For data analysis, R-studio will be used. All hypotheses will be checked using Structural equation modelling (SEM). In the structural equation modelling, latent variables were drawn as circles, measured variables were shown as squares, residuals and variances were drawn as double-headed arrows into an object.

Data https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_uYyw2-4EdMmHlrf-OKhZdpRti1iDgZ-

Survey Sample with Codebook https://drive.google.com/open?id=14RiZQHHxIUq_o9Kon8DMjauI2St4lv0A

Interviews with 20 respondents

1 note · View note

khursheedsahardat · 3 years

Text

Annotated Bibliography

1-Zubala, A., MacIntyre, D. J., and Karkou, V.,Art psychotherapy practice with adults suffering from depression in the UK: qualitative ﬁndings from depression-speciﬁc questionnaire., The Arts in Psychotherapy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2014.10.007.

This research was carried out in the United Kingdom in 2014 with ethical approval of Queen Margaret University of Edinburgh in 2011. The research aimed to find out how art interventions are used by art therapist to tackle depression in adults. 5 art therapists prepared a thematic questionnaire with specifics of depression and were surveyed in adults aging 18-64. The limiting factors of the research were lack of qualitative data collection and small number of research surveyors. The conclusions give away that various definitions of depression were given hence the final data cannot be accepted widely and may be used with caution. It also said that the arts therapists use mix methods of theoretical treatment depending on the client’s needs. The results supported various theoretical approaches e.g. verbal therapy, solution based therapy, narrative therapy, non-verbal and systemic therapy etc.

2- Waller, D, & Sibbett, C 2005, Art Therapy and Cancer Care, McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [23 November 2020].

Diane Waller, Professor of art psychotherapy at Goldsmiths University of London and Caryl Sibbett, art psychotherapist, senior trainer and supervisor at British association of art therapy have presented Broadly theoretical perspective on art therapy and cancer care, this chapter of the book “art therapy and cancer care” is from the second part where the practitioners have contributed one case study in which patient tells that during her fight with breast cancer and therapy sessions she has seen the riches of life. Despite being fully aware of the illness of the body, the subconscious brain decides to intervene in the session and illness-free work was produced to alter the reality. Few sessions in-between informed severe helplessness and urge to fight the circumstances and few showed letting go of the pain eventually and being brave in the reality for what it is, these experiences ask the patient to come out of the mind and onto the paper. Art making demands next move continuously until you answer the paper hence you stimulate the brain.

3- Gress, Carol E., "The Effect of Art Therapy on Hospice and Palliative Caregivers" (2015). Nursing Theses and Capstone Projects. Paper 211.

This research was submitted to the faculty of Gardner-Webb University Hunt School of Nursing in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Nursing Degree intended to answer the question of whether art therapy is effective on compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress in hospice/palliative caregivers through art therapy for the purpose of understanding and healing traumatic emotional reactions to events such as suffering or death. It was found out that emergency nurses in comparison to hospice nurses had more anxiety towards death and experienced symptoms of burnout. Emotional distance was the main reason of this for which art therapy sessions proved to be of better coping strategies that dealt with self-awareness, teamwork and cooperation by identifying each other’s emotional needs. Hence caregivers will be required to learn new ways of delivering care in hospice/palliative care.

4- Chong, C.Y.J. (2015). Why art psychotherapy? Through the lens of interpersonal neurobiology: The distinctive role of art psychotherapy intervention for clients with early relational trauma. International Journal of Art Therapy, 20(3), pp.118–126.

Chong presents in her article, the relationship of art and neurobiology in her article where she discusses the language of the mind and the language of the art both as the limbic dialogue between the subject and the object, and hence she puts forward the idea of art psychotherapy as the most valuable and trusted intervention whilst addressing mental conflict in early relational trauma or intrapsychic conflicts especially in comparison of verbal therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, establishing art psychotherapy as the ultimate language of emotions and irrespective of logic as emotions and logic don’t really go hand in hand.

5- Celine Schweizer, Erik J. Knorth, Tom A. van Yperen, Marinus Spreen, Evaluation of ‘Images of Self’ an art therapy program for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 116, 2020, 105207, ISSN 0190-7409

This study was conducted in the primary school of the Netherlands and The article mentions the “images of self” programme run through children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder under the supervision of art therapists, the therapy type was particularly art based, the number of participants was 12 children between ages 8 to 12 and the parents as the source of primitive informants, as well as the teachers and art therapists. All children showed anxiety and were reluctant with the experiment at first. The methodology used was mix and measurements of pre-test and post-test were determined, which collectively showed improvements in social behavior of children and happiness in the children’s mood was evident.

6- Cassandra Rowe (2016). Evaluating Art Therapy to Heal the Effects of Trauma among Refugee Youth: The Burma Art Therapy Program Evaluation. Sage Journals, Volume: 18 issue: 1, page(s): 26-33

The article opens by defining art as therapeutic tool where it is described that art helps heal mental illness and promotes self growth, followed by the importance of using art therapy clinically with the patients of trauma especially the refugees, emphasizing that art is so much related to symbolism and helps retrieve memories through visuals, therefore art therapy was ideal with the vulnerable refugees who had been displaced from homes. The experiment was run through assessment tools and the methodology was clinical and four validated tools were used with 30 participants with a follow-up to determine levels of increased or decreased behavioral problems.

7- Caroline Case, Tessa Dalley. 11 Jun 2014, The art therapy room from: The Handbook of Art Therapy Routledge Accessed on: 06 Apr 2020

This chapter gives detailed insight into the art therapy rooms where art activities may be carried out depending on the client group, the author has provided theory behind the practical setting of the art room, stating that art room can be a significant and memorable place for a client, because amidst of the chaos, the client may consider art therapy room as his/her solace and may use objects and his/her therapists as the remedial source of his/her internal or external problems. Meanwhile, potential triggers are mentioned in the chapter, for example an art therapy room by the view of a calm beautiful lake can also be a dark deep haunting because of the lake water where crocodiles can eat humans. Hence art therapy rooms differ with clients and are carefully planned.

8- Hinz, LD 2019, Expressive Therapies Continuum: A Framework for Using Art in Therapy, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [18 January 2021].

The chapter broadly explains the kinesthetic movement use in the expressive therapies continuum emphasizing that it is the basic mode of expression. When dancers move their bodies, they express through their bodies, without words, hence any assessment in art therapy that is preverbal meaning if we want to retrieve memories from the childhood, then kinesthetic movement can play a key role Kinesthetic movement and release of bodily tension are directly proportional, the more attuned is the body with nature’s rhythm, the less the bodily tension it carries Further explaining the importance of movement of body, the chapter establishes that according to research, action influences images and thoughts, which inform decision-making and hence action plays a vital role in cognition.

9-King, J.L. (Ed.). (2016). Neuroscience concepts in clinical practice. Art Therapy, Trauma, and Neuroscience: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge.

This chapter covers basics of brain, neurons and neural network through which messages travel in the body’s periphery which is responsible for the humans to take actions and initiate and sustain behaviors. The chapter also establishes that just like every human is different, every brain is different and has it’s own individuality and pace of plasticity. And at some point some decision makings alter the brain’s structure due to intensity and demanding nature of the networks. The chapter further talks about genetic mutations as they are responsible for neuromodulation as each brain has some factors under which it is effected for example genetics, gender and environment so what we can do is When we combine multimodality imaging with a detailed clinical history, subjective symptoms, clinical observation, and objective neurobehavioral assessment, to define a patient’s unique strengths and weaknesses. We can gain greater understanding of the person.

10- Rubin, J.A. 2016, Marcia Rosal. Cognitive and behavioral art therapy. Approaches to Art Therapy: Theory and Technique, 3rd edn, Taylor and Francis, Florence. P 333

The chapter explains development in cognitive behavioral therapy and its models today, dialectical behavioral therapy, mindfulness therapy, cognitive therapy with both children and adults. The chapter establishes behavior therapy as the most ideal form of therapy in expressive arts therapy paradigm because it uses thinking to identify emotions, the feedback and reinforcement system of the brain motivates the brain muscles and instant creativity gives a sense of achievement. Making art can accelerate positive emotions because the drawing constantly awaits the maker to take next action, whether in a hopeful stroke or a stressful stroke, it produces an inner dialogue between a client and artwork.

1 note · View note

atwoodk · 4 years

Photo

Stress

What “is” stress? Draw on Lyons & Chamberlain’s chapter to reflect on the different ways of conceptualizing stress. Using an example, illustrate how each framing of stress would impact what stress is understood to be.

If you asked everybody what stress was to them it would be unlikely that you would get two answers the same. There is no one definite answer to what stress is, it is not an agreed-upon construct and will have different meanings depending on factors such as gender, culture, ideology, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity alongside a range of other contributing factors. Stress is a very complex construct that is understood, experienced, and coped with in varying ways. What is understood and works for one person that is stressed, will not be the same for another person. Before diving into the literature this week my understanding of stress was very basic, I had the general idea of what I thought stress was to me which involved increasing physical symptoms, a feeling of unease or unwellness, and also a tiny bit of prior knowledge of the more biological implications that it can influence the nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system. The main biological knowledge I had was relevant to the nervous system about the fight or flight response but this was very inadequate. From engaging with Lyons & Chamberlain’s chapter on stress I feel like I have a wealth of knowledge in comparison, and that it has enlightened me to how complex stress is and why there is so much debate surrounding it.

Lyons & Chamberlains note the complexity surrounding stress and investigate a wide range of framings that contribute to the constructs of stress. Firstly, a framing of stress can be seen to be interpreted in three ways, response, stimulus, and process. The response concept is what would be considered your immediate reaction, it is when the fight or flight process will activate telling you to either stay/fight or run/flight it is an internal cue. Which can have positive effects when you are in danger as the sympathetic nervous system is turned on which increases activity and arousal and diverts from other structures that don’t need the sustenance at that moment. However, this is only beneficial for a limited amount of time, because if you stay in this heightened state it can cause long-term adverse health effects. The second concept is stimulus, which is a reaction to something that is happening in the environment it is seen as an external cue, for instance, major life events, chronic circumstances, or even just daily hassles. Lastly, the concept of process is defined as the interaction between people and the environment and this is deemed neither internal nor external. Therefore, incorporating the transactional theory of stress into this concept that a response to stress will only occur if that certain stressor was seen as being a stressor to that particular individual, emphasizing once again that everyone encounters stress differently. I feel like this expanded well on the basic knowledge I already had about interactions involved with stress and gave me a deeper in-depth understanding.

Something I find so fascinating and engaging is the framing of the effects personality traits can have on an individual’s health relating to stress, as when first hearing this idea it seems a little out of the box. Even so, this chapter sheds some light on the dispositional influences and personality traits of optimism and pessimism and how they can impact health outcomes. Individuals who have more of an optimistic trait tend to have more social support, interpret issues positively and due to this experience, have less stress having a more positive correlation with health outcomes. On the other hand, pessimistic people don’t have the same social support, tend to look at issues more negatively, and can also have a negative outlook on the future incorporating more stressors in their lives which can be linked closely to disease progression. This is very relational to the symptoms topic as people are presenting with negative personality traits such as negative affectivity or neuroticism and this corresponds with over-reporting and feeling more sensations of symptoms, showing links between the physiological effects of the two and what negative influences can lead to.

In investigating this chapter there was a wide range of different research approaches taken, however, they seemed quite limiting and I don’t know if this is because stress is such a complex topic or if these limitations were methodical design. The first one that struck me was the stimulus concept where they used the social readjustment rating scale (SRRS), this scale rated certain life events on a positive and negative scale. The failings listed here were that younger people experience more of the life events than older people, which probably isn’t the case it is more so that this scale included major life events that were associated with younger age and didn’t counteract this by having major life events that would impact more on older age. Then reading further into the Lyons & Chamberlains chapter it mentioned the impact that optimism and pessimism have concerning stress, and couldn’t this impact the scale depending on which personality trait an individual leaned more towards too? It was also reiterated in both these topics and an immense number of others in this chapter that a lot of research was focused on white upper-class men, which makes the research not generalizable to any other population. This brings to mind why stress is so complex as for some reason we keep looking into the same population, where if we included female, trans-gender, different ethnic groups maybe we could close the gap a little on the complexity of it all and fill in some of the blanks.

Something very important that I have taken from engaging in the topic of stress is that it is different for everyone, everyone has different coping methods/strategies and we shouldn’t blame people for their stress. When I am stressed I like to exercise or play sport, this could be different for a range of individuals as even the thought of having to do exercise or play sport could be a stressor for them when it does the opposite for me. Furthermore, it is especially important to take consideration of all these factors as currently, we are in a pandemic where everyone is in a chronic state of stress, as there are unlimited unknowns in the present and future to come. This is a time where people need to band together and look out for one another, which links in with the other topic of stress and social buffering that has been explored in this course.

0 notes

ralphlayton · 5 years

Text

Trust Factors: Why Your Brand Should Take a Stand with Its Marketing Strategy

Earlier this year, Salesforce made waves by announcing a policy that compelled retailers to either stop selling military-style rifles and certain accessories, or stop using its popular e-commerce software. For a massive brand like this to take such an emphatic stand on a divisive social issue would’ve been unthinkable not so long ago. But in today’s world at large, and consequently in the business and marketing environments, it’s becoming more common. This owes to a variety of factors, ranging from generational changes among consumers to a growing need to differentiate. But, like so many other trends and strategies we see emerging in digital marketing, I think it mostly comes back to one overarching thing: the trust factor. In this installment of our Trust Factors series, we’ll explore why and how brands and corporations can take a stand on important issues, building trust and rapport with customers and potential buyers in the process.

The Business Case for Bold Stances

Executives from Salesforce might suggest that it made such a bold and provocative move simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. (CEO Marc Benioff, for instance, has been outspoken about gun control and specifically his opposition to the AR-15 rifle.) But of course, one of the 10 largest software companies in the world isn’t making these kinds of decisions without a considerable business case behind them. Like many other modern companies, Salesforce is taking the lead in a movement that feels inevitable. As millennials come to account for an increasingly large portion of the customer population, corporate social responsibility weighs more and more heavily on marketing strategies everywhere. A few data points to think about:

Research last year by FleishmanHillard found that 61% of survey respondents believe it’s important for companies to express their views, whether or not the person agrees with them.

Per the same study, 66% say they have stopped using the products and services of a company because the company’s response to an issue does not support their personal view.

The latest global Earned Brand Report from Edelman found that 64% of people are now “belief-driven buyers,” meaning they will choose, switch, avoid or boycott a brand based on its stand on societal issues.

MWWPR categorizes 35% of the adult population in the U.S. as “corpsumers,” up by two percentage points from the prior year. The term describes "a brand activist who considers a company's values, actions and reputation to be just as important as their product or service."

Corpsumers say they’re 90% more likely to patronize companies that take a stand on social and public policy matters, and 80% say they’ll even pay more for products from such brands.

(Source)

What Does It Mean to Take a Stand as a Brand?

Admittedly, the phrase is somewhat ambiguous. So let’s clear something up right now: taking a stand doesn’t necessarily mean your company needs to speak out on touchy political issues. When Dave Gerhart, Vice President of Marketing for Drift, gave a talk at B2BSMX last month outlining his 10 commandments for modern marketing, taking a stand was among the directives he implored. Gerhart pointed to Salesforce’s gun gambit as one precedent, but also called out a less controversial example: his own company’s crusade against the lead form. I think this serves as a great case in point. Lead forms aren’t a hot-button societal issue that’s going to rile people up, necessarily, but they’ve been a subject of annoyance on the consumer side for years. Drift’s decision to do away with them completely did entail some risk (to back up their stance, they had to commit to not using this proven, mainstream method for generating actionable leads) but made a big impression within their industry. Now, it’s a rallying cry for their brand. From my view, these are the trust-building ingredients, which both the Salesforce and Drift examples cover:

It has to matter to your customers

It has to be relevant to your industry or niche

It has to entail some sort of risk or chance-taking on behalf of the brand

Weighing that final item is the main sticking point for companies as they contemplate action on this front.

Mitigating the Risks of Taking a Stand

The potential downside of taking a controversial stand is obvious enough: “What if we piss off a bunch of our customers and our bottom line takes a hit?” Repelling certain customers is inherent to any bold stance, but obviously you’ll want the upside (i.e., affinity and loyalty built with current customers, plus positive attention drawing in new customers) to strongly outdistance the downside (i.e., existing or potential customers defecting because they disagree). Here are some things to think about on this front.

Know Your Audience and Employees

It’s always vital for marketers to have a deep understanding of the people they serve, and in this case it’s especially key. You’ll want to have a comprehensive grasp of the priorities and attitudes of people in your target audience to ensure that a majority will agree with — or at least tolerate — your positioning. Region, age, and other demographic factors can help you reach corollary conclusions. For example, our clients at Antea Group are adamant about the dangers of climate change. In certain circumstances this could (sadly) be a provocative and alienating message, but Antea Group serves leaders and companies focusing on sustainability, who widely recognize the reality and urgency of climate change. Not only that, but Antea Group also employs people who align with this vision, so embracing its importance both externally and internally leads to heightened engagement and award-winning culture. As another example, retailer Patagonia shook things up in late 2017 when it proclaimed on social media “The President Stole Your Land” after the Trump administration moved to reduce a pair of national monuments. In a way, this is potentially off-putting for the sizable chunk of its customer base that supports Trump, but given that Patagonia serves (and employs) an outdoorsy audience, the sentiment resonated and the company is thriving.

Know Your Industry and Competition

On the surface, Salesforce taking a public stand on gun control seems quite audacious. The Washington Post notes that retailers like Camping World, which figured to be affected by the new policy, are major customers for the platform. What if this drives them elsewhere? However, peer companies like Amazon and Shopify have their own gun restriction policies in place, so the move from Salesforce isn’t as “out there” as one might think. When you see your industry as a whole moving in a certain direction, it’s beneficial to get out front and position yourself as a leader rather than a follower.

Actions Speak Louder

Empty words are destined to backfire. Taking a stand is meaningless if you can’t back it up. Analysts warn that “goodwashing” is the new form of “greenwashing,” a term that refers to companies talking a big game on eco-friendly initiatives but failing to follow up with meaningful actions. According to MWWPR’s chief strategy officer Careen Winters (via AdWeek): “Companies that attempt to take a stand on issues but don’t really put their money where their mouth is, or what they are doing is not aligned with their track record and core values, will find themselves in a position where the corpsumers don’t believe them. Fifty-nine percent of corpsumers say they are skeptical about a brand’s motives for taking a stand on policy issues.”

Be Transparent and Authentic

One interesting aspect of the aforementioned FleishmanHillard study: 66% of respondents say they’ve stopped using the products and services of a company because the company’s response to an issue did not support their personal views; however another 43% say that if company explains WHY they have taken a position on an issue, the customer is extremely likely to keep supporting them.

(Source)

In other words, transparency is essential. If you fully explain the “why” behind a particular brand stance, you can score trust-building benefits with both those who do and do not agree.

Where We Stand at TopRank

At TopRank Marketing, we have a few stances that we openly advocate. One is gender equality; our CEO Lee Odden noticed many "top marketers" lists and editorial collaborations were crowded with men, so he (and we) have made it a point to highlight many of the women leading the way in our industry, both through our content projects and Lee's annual Women Who Rock Digital Marketing lists (10 years running!). Another is our commitment to serving a deeper purpose as a business. Of course we want to help our clients reach their business goals, but we also love working with virtuous brands that are improving the communities around them. We strive to also do so ourselves through frequent volunteering, donations to causes, and charitable team outings. These include packing food for the hungry, renovating yards for the homeless, and our upcoming Walk for Alzheimer's participation.

The Worst Stand You Can Take is Standing Still

Trust in marketing is growing more vital each day. It’s not enough to offer a great product or excellent customer service. Increasingly, customers want to do business with companies they like, trust, and align with. Those brands that sit on the sidelines regarding important issues are coming under greater scrutiny. Meanwhile, those with the guile to take bold but strategically sound stands are being rewarded. To learn more about navigating these waters without diminishing trust or eroding your brand’s credibility, take a look at our post on avoiding trust fractures through authenticity, purpose-driven decision-making, and a big-picture mindset. Or check out these other entries in our “Trust Factors” series:

The B2B Marketing Funnel is Dead: Say Hello to the Trust Funnel

Trust Factors: The (In)Credible Impact of B2B Influencer Marketing

Trust Factors: How Best Answer Content Fuels Brand Credibility

Tip of the Iceberg: A Story of Trust in Marketing as Told by Statistics

Be Like Honest Abe: How Content Marketers Can Build Trust Through Storytelling

The post Trust Factors: Why Your Brand Should Take a Stand with Its Marketing Strategy appeared first on Online Marketing Blog - TopRank®.

Trust Factors: Why Your Brand Should Take a Stand with Its Marketing Strategy published first on yhttps://improfitninja.blogspot.com/

0 notes

samuelpboswell · 5 years

Text

Trust Factors: Why Your Brand Should Take a Stand with Its Marketing Strategy

The Business Case for Bold Stances

Research last year by FleishmanHillard found that 61% of survey respondents believe it’s important for companies to express their views, whether or not the person agrees with them.

Per the same study, 66% say they have stopped using the products and services of a company because the company’s response to an issue does not support their personal view.

Corpsumers say they’re 90% more likely to patronize companies that take a stand on social and public policy matters, and 80% say they’ll even pay more for products from such brands.

(Source)

What Does It Mean to Take a Stand as a Brand?

It has to matter to your customers

It has to be relevant to your industry or niche

It has to entail some sort of risk or chance-taking on behalf of the brand

Weighing that final item is the main sticking point for companies as they contemplate action on this front.

Mitigating the Risks of Taking a Stand

Know Your Audience and Employees

Know Your Industry and Competition

Actions Speak Louder

Be Transparent and Authentic

(Source)

In other words, transparency is essential. If you fully explain the “why” behind a particular brand stance, you can score trust-building benefits with both those who do and do not agree.

Where We Stand at TopRank

The Worst Stand You Can Take is Standing Still

The B2B Marketing Funnel is Dead: Say Hello to the Trust Funnel

Trust Factors: The (In)Credible Impact of B2B Influencer Marketing

Trust Factors: How Best Answer Content Fuels Brand Credibility

Tip of the Iceberg: A Story of Trust in Marketing as Told by Statistics

Be Like Honest Abe: How Content Marketers Can Build Trust Through Storytelling

The post Trust Factors: Why Your Brand Should Take a Stand with Its Marketing Strategy appeared first on Online Marketing Blog - TopRank®.

from The SEO Advantages https://www.toprankblog.com/2019/09/taking-stand-marketing-strategy/

0 notes

bluewatsons · 6 years

Text

Katarzyna Adamczyk, Voluntary and Involuntary Singlehood and Young Adults’ Mental Health: an Investigation of Mediating Role of Romantic Loneliness, 36 Curr Psychology 888 (2017)

Abstract

The present study tested the hypothesis that single young adults who perceive their singlehood as voluntary would report a higher level of positive mental health (i.e., emotional, psychological and social well-being), lower levels of mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety, social dysfunction, severe depression) and romantic loneliness in comparison to young adults who perceive their singlehood as involuntary. This paper also investigated whether romantic loneliness mediates the relationship between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health, and mental health illness. The study sample included 151 participants (86 females and 65 males) aged 20–26 (M = 22.48, SD = 2.01) from Poland. The main findings were that voluntarily single young adults reported a lower level of romantic loneliness compared to involuntarily single young adults. The two groups differed neither in regard to positive mental health nor in regard to mental health problems. In addition, gender differences were observed solely in the domain of romantic loneliness, with women reporting greater romantic loneliness than men. The mediation analysis revealed that romantic loneliness does not mediate the relationship between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health, and mental health illness. Voluntary and involuntary singlehood was predictive of somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, severe depression, and romantic loneliness.

Introduction

The breadth and depth of an individual’s social connections is predictive of subjective well-being, and social connections (such as the spouse, close friends and confidants, friendly neighbors, and supportive coworkers) decrease the likelihood of sadness, loneliness, low self-esteem and problems with eating and sleeping (Helliwell and Putnam 2004). Prior studies revealed that regardless of the method of measurement of mental health (i.e., diagnoses, symptoms, overall psychological well-being, psychiatric treatment), married people reported the best health compared to never-married and formerly married people (e.g., Barrett 2000). Moreover, prior research also provided evidence of the linkage not only between mental health and marital status, but also between mental health and non-marital relationships (e.g., Adamczyk and Segrin 2015a; Braithwaite et al. 2010). At the same time, in most Western countries we can observe the diminishing position of marriage in people’s lives (Næss et al. 2015), in particular in young adults’ lives who postpone marriage and prolong their premarital relationships (Lehnart et al. 2010). These changes are accompanied by higher social acceptance of alternatives to marriage, such as non-marital heterosexual cohabitation and singlehood (Glenn and Weaver 1988). As a result, the psychological advantages of marriage over singlehood have been suggested to become weaker (Glenn and Weaver 1988).

While the number of single persons has been on the rise, in particular in the case of those who declare choosing to be single, it is important to investigate whether and how voluntary and involuntary singlehood affects the psychosocial functioning of single young adults. This issue is gaining in importance in light of the fact that although remaining single is becoming prolonged with respect to individuals’ lifespan and is increasingly more prevalent, remaining single – especially by choice – leads to negative perception of people making such choices. For example, Morris and Osburn (2016) found in their study that singles who had chose to remain single were perceived more negatively (as being more self-centered and less well-adjusted) than singles who wanted to marry. The issue of involuntary singlehood is not limited to remaining single and experiencing the unmet need to have a partner/spouse; it also raises the question about other life spheres that might be affected by involuntary singlehood, in particular when singlehood extends over time and continues in young, middle and late adulthood. Involuntary singlehood may, therefore, be related to certain negative effects, for example involuntary childlessness and unmet parenthood goals. In turn, involuntarily childless people experience a number of physiological and psychological symptoms of distress (e.g., health complaints, depression, anxiety and even complicated bereavement) (Lechner et al. 2006).

The present paper focuses on singlehood understood as voluntary (i.e., a result of an individual’s choice) and involuntary (i.e., as related to external factors, thus not experienced by choice). Therefore, in this paper the nature of voluntary or involuntary singlehood is related to the subjective perception of singlehood by an individual in terms of his or her own choice or external barriers hindering finding a partner and/or remaining in a relationship, rather than to more objective circumstances leading to involuntary singlehood such as, for instance, in China, where as a result of the unbalanced sex ratio at birth, excess female child mortality and increasing female marriage migration, the male marriage squeeze led to difficulties among men in some rural areas in finding a wife (Liu et al. 2014). Although the linkage between marital status, romantic relationships and mental health is strongly established, few studies have investigated the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and mental health. Therefore, the primary aim of this paper is to provide a deeper insight into singlehood from the perspective of its voluntary or involuntary nature. In order to achieve this aim, the present study intended to investigate possible differences in the domain of positive mental health (i.e., emotional, psychological and social well-being), mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression) and romantic loneliness between voluntarily and involuntarily single individuals from Poland. The study also focused on possible gender differences as prior research suggested that marriage and romantic relationships may operate differently for women and men (Simon 2002; Wadsworth 2016) and that certain gender differences exist in the domain of romantic loneliness and mental health (e.g., Dykstra and de Jong Gierveld 2004; Simon 2002). The second major objective of the paper is to explore a theoretical model postulating the mediating role of romantic loneliness in the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ positive mental health and mental health illness. It is important to emphasize that the sample of Polish young adults examined in the current investigation provides a useful context for a test of these interconnections since most people associate Poland with strong Catholic values and low acceptance of alternative forms of marital and family life (Baranowska-Rataj et al. 2013). Such dominant pro-marriage culture may negatively affect mental health of single people (Adamczyk and Segrin 2015b) as, for example, the association between marital status and subjective well-being may depend on the marital context, i.e., the degree to which marriage is recognized as a normative expectation or achievement by a given peer group (Wadsworth 2016).

Voluntary and Involuntary Singlehood

In regard to the choice of whether to remain single, undoubtedly some persons chose single life and prefer such a lifestyle (Boyd and Bee 2008; Braun-Gałkowska 2008; Lewis and Moon 1998), but at the same time, for real or imagined reasons, some people do not find a lifetime partner (Lewis and Moon 1998). Prior research attempted to investigate the reasons behind singlehood. For example, Frazier et al. (1996) in their study based on 217 heterosexual divorced and never-married adults aged 31–68 years (M = 43) identified the following attributions regarding reasons for being unmarried: (1) not meeting the right person, (2) not meeting potential partners, (3) marriage as not a priority in life, (4) importance of other things in life, (5) choice of being single, (6) difficulties in establishing relationships; (7) fear that the relationship will not work, (8) fear of commitment; (9) belief that all good partners are already “taken.” Out of these reasons, the choice of being single was the fifth most frequently provided explanation. In the same study, when asked in an open-ended question about their reasons for being single, the respondents also listed the choice of being single (the second most frequently indicated category). In a study by Gigy (1980) in which 66 single women (of 30 years of age or more) took part, the choice of being single was also indicated as one of the reasons for being unmarried. In a study performed on a sample of 160 women (of 30 and 60 years of age and more) from Jammu and Delhi, Prabhakar (2011) found that the two main reasons for remaining single were the individual’s voluntary decision and circumstantial factors. The first category included reasons such as high marital expectations, desire for independence, pursuit of career, disappointment in love, and parental objection to choice marriage, while the second category included financial constraints, loss of parents, inability to find a suitable mate in one’s own caste, and health /disability (Prabhakar 2011).

In general, prior research revealed the following three primary reasons for being unmarried reported by single adults: (1) personal choice, (2) external circumstances, and (3) personal deficits or self-blame (e.g., Austrom and Hanel 1985; Frazier et al. 1996. The first category refers to having positive reasons for being single (e.g., “present lifestyle could not be improved by marriage” or “the lack of need to involve in a relationship”; Austrom and Hanel 1985; Palus 2010). The second category includes single adults indicating external circumstances or “barriers” as reasons for their singlehood (e.g., “not meeting the right person” or “unreciprocated feelings”; Frazier et al. 1996; Palus 2010). In turn, the third category pertains to personal deficits such as shyness or sense of being unattractive (Austrom and Hanel 1985; Palus 2010). Moreover, based on his two primary dimensions to the experience of singlehood (a choice and a temporal dimension), Stein (1981) proposed the following four types of single adults: voluntary temporary, voluntary stable, involuntary temporary, and involuntary stable. At the same time, Stein (1981) and other researchers (e.g., Reynolds et al. 2007) recognized that this classification is a flexible process rather than a stable categorization. Moreover, as Reynolds et al. (2007) indicated, the perception of one’ own singlehood as made by choice or as made by chance may be associated with different outcomes. For instance, individuals who represent themselves as having made a choice to be single and for whom having an intimate relationship is not a central goal in life may not feel that they have failed to achieve this goal. In turn, individuals who want to be committed in a serious relationship, may have to deal with the sense of failure in achieving this goal and they may attribute themselves less agency than those who chose to remain single (Reynolds et al. 2007). This different perception of one’s own singlehood may reflect more general concepts of autonomy and self-determination (e.g., Deci and Ryan 2008). Moreover, control over self and over the environment is related to a wide spectrum of positive outcomes in various life domains, for example satisfaction, physical and psychological well-being (Hostetler 2009). In addition, prior studies, however concerning involuntary celibacy, showed that involuntary celibacy was associated with feelings of sexual frustration, depression, rejection, problems with concentration or work, and low self-esteem (Donnelly and Burgess 2008). Therefore, it is plausible to assume that individuals who perceive their singlehood as chosen may experience greater freedom in making their own choices and taking actions regarding their single life than individuals who perceive their singlehood as being beyond their control. As a result, chosen singlehood might be accompanied by greater positive mental health and lower levels of mental health problems and romantic loneliness.

Mental Health

Recently the concept of mental health has extended beyond the simple definition of the absence of psychopathologies such as depression and anxiety (see Keyes 2002; Lamers et al. 2011; Westerhof and Keyes 2010). Alongside the assessment of mental health in terms of internalizing symptoms (such as depression and anxiety) and externalizing symptoms (such as alcohol and substance abuse), mental health is also conceptualized as well-being that is related to subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction (Bierman et al. 2006). Mental health is, therefore, understood as “a positive phenomenon that is more than the absence of mental illness” (Westerhof and Keyes 2010, p. 110), as “a syndrome of symptoms of positive feelings and positive functioning in life” (Keyes 2002, p. 208). One of the operationalizations of mental health is subjective well-being, which has been investigated within the following two research traditions (Keyes and Simoes 2012): (1) hedonic tradition, in line with which well-being involves happiness and pleasant emotions; and maximizing positive, pleasant feelings, and minimizing negative, unpleasant feelings contributes to the increase of mental health (Lamers et al. 2011). This aspect of the hedonic tradition has been widely investigated in studies on emotional well-being, in which measures of satisfaction with life and positive affect are used (Keyes and Simoes 2012; Lamers et al. 2011; Westerhof and Keyes 2010); (2) eudaimonic tradition, which focuses on optimal psychological functioning in life and is referred to as psychological well-being (i.e., the subjective evaluation of optimal individual functioning) and social well-being (i.e., the subjective evaluation of optimal functioning for a community (Lamers et al. 2011; Westerhof and Keyes 2010). In regard to Keyes’ (2002) model of mental health, only a combination of emotional, psychological and social well-being allows for the consideration of mental health.

On a general level, the feeling of being connected with other people can lower morbidity and mortality, and the quality of relationships is a predictor of physical and psychological outcomes in the domain of health (Gore 2014). In their study, Kamp Dush and Amato (2005) concluded – in accordance with prior studies – that romantic relationships (marriage, cohabitation, steady dating) provide benefits for individuals’ mental health and sense of well-being. In line with this notion, in prior research single individuals when compared with married individuals reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, mood disorders, adjustment problems, and other forms of psychological distress, and a higher rate of alcohol-related problems (see Braithwaite et al. 2010). When compared with individuals in non-marital relationship, single individuals also reported more mental health problems (Braithwaite et al. 2010) and lower emotional well-being (Adamczyk and Segrin 2015a). Single people were found to have the lowest level of well-being, followed by dating, cohabiting, and married young adults, who reported the highest levels (Soons and Liefbroer 2008). At the same time, contrary to prior research, in a recent study (Adamczyk and Segrin 2015a) single young adults did not differ in regard to social and psychological well-being and total well-being, as well as in regard to somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, severe depression, and total mental health illness when compared to their counterparts in non-marital relationships.

With respect to gender differences in the domain of mental health, numerous studies provided the following results (see Simon 2002 for review): (1) married women and men experience better mental health than unmarried women and men; (2) regardless of their marital status, women report more mental health problems than men; however, these studies focused on women’s typical emotional problems; (3) there is an interaction between gender and marital status, with inconsistent findings showing men to derive more emotional benefits from marriage or women deriving benefits from marriage. Simon (2002), in his study ran on a US sample, found that for both women and men marriage and lack of marriage are related to emotional benefits and emotional costs (with the exception of separation and divorce). In his study he found that in the case of all marital statuses women reported more depression, while men reported more substance abuse (Simon 2002). In a study using data from the British Household Panel Survey, men in first partnerships reported better mental health than those who remained single, while single women experienced equally good mental health as did women in their first partnership and better health than those who had experienced a partnership split (Willitts et al. 2004). Therefore, the author emphasizes that gender differences in adults’ mental health should be explained in reference to the function of emotional-socialization experiences. In a study by Bierman et al. (2006), a small number of marginally significant differences were found between men and women with respect to the mental health advantage of the married. In their study, Simon and Barrett (2010) found that relationship status was more important for young women’s than for young men’s emotional well-being. In addition, a break-up of a recent romantic relationship was related to more depression for women than for men, and a current romantic involvement was related to fewer substance abuse problems for women (Simon and Barrett 2010).

Romantic Loneliness

Loneliness is considered to be a common life experience viewed as a subjectively unpleasant and distressing feeling, and is recognized to be a risk factor for various physiological and health outcomes (Cacioppo et al. 2006). Specifically, regardless of objective social isolation or social support, loneliness has been found to be related to negative outcomes in the domain of physical health (e.g., poorer immune functioning, poorer cardiovascular functioning, impaired sleep, obesity) and to personality disorders, hypochondriasis, schizophrenia, suicidal ideation and behavior, depression, and anxiety (Aanes et al. 2010; Cacioppo et al. 2006). Aanes et al. (2010) in their study found that the importance of loneliness as a mediator of the linkage between interpersonal stress and health outcomes (i.e., anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and somatic symptoms) differs for these outcomes. To be precise, the authors found that in the case of depressive symptoms over 75 % of the total effect was mediated through loneliness, whereas in the case of somatic symptoms just over 40 % of the total effect was mediated through loneliness. In a more recent study, individuals with the worst mental health and well-being were three to five times more likely to report occasional loneliness and three to six times more likely to report frequent loneliness (Kearns et al. 2015). Furthermore, in a Russian study, lonely individuals were characterized by a significantly increased risk of reporting poor self-rated health, mental health problems and insomnia in the previous twelve months (Stickley et al. 2015).

Loneliness may be conceptualized as a multifaceted and domain-specific phenomenon. Weiss (1973) was the first to describe loneliness as a multidimensional experience and proposed a distinction between social loneliness as a result of an inadequate access to a network of peers, co-workers, neighbours, or friends, and emotional loneliness resulting from a lack of close or intimate relationships that are characteristic of ties with a romantic partner, parent, or child. Emotional loneliness is primarily related to “the absence of a partner, that is, with the absence of an exclusive, close, and intimate tie” (Dykstra and Fokkema 2007, p. 9). In turn, social loneliness is related to a perceived deficiency in social networks, or a lack of social relations or social activities (Russell et al. 1984; Weiss 1973). Furthermore, on the basis of Weiss’ (1973) distinction between the experience of social isolation (social loneliness) and emotional isolation (emotional loneliness), DiTommaso and Spinner (1993) noted that emotional loneliness appeared to be comprised of two domains, that is, family emotional loneliness and romantic emotional loneliness. The lack of romantic partners or intimate relationships may be an important perceived causal factor for one’s present feelings of loneliness (e.g., Rokach and Brock 1998). For example, married individuals and individuals living with a significant other reported less romantic loneliness than those who were not in such relationships (Bernardon et al. 2011). DiTommaso and Spinner (1993) revealed that being involved in a romantic relationship was significantly related to lower levels of romantic loneliness, but was only weakly linked to family and social loneliness. Divorce or widowhood were found to be associated with an increased risk of feeling lonely, whereas not living alone and having more social support turned out to lower the risk of being lonely (Stickley et al. 2015). Furthermore, several studies conducted in Poland also provided consistent results demonstrating that single young adults report greater romantic loneliness than young adults in non-marital relationships (e.g., Adamczyk 2015).

In regard to gender differences in the domain of loneliness, the results of past studies are not congruent. In other words, some prior studies revealed that men experienced greater loneliness than women (e.g., Dykstra and de Jong Gierveld 2004), whereas other studies indicated no differences (Cramer and Neyedley 1998) or women reporting greater loneliness (e.g., Jakobsson and Hallberg 2005). In other studies, male university students had higher levels of romantic loneliness, while there were no significant gender differences for either social or family loneliness (DiTommaso et al. 2003). Furthermore, in a study by DiTommaso et al. (2005), men reported higher levels of family and social loneliness than did women. In turn, DiTommaso et al. (2007), in a study utilizing a sample of individuals aged 17 to 79 years, did not find significant gender differences in the area of three distinct domains of loneliness. In a recent Polish study men were found to experience greater social loneliness than women, but no gender differences emerged in the domain of romantic and family loneliness (Adamczyk 2015).

An Exploration of Mediation Model

As discussed in the previous section, there is a well-established linkage between marital status (and non-marital relationships) and mental health, as well as between loneliness and mental health outcomes. At the same time, to the best of my knowledge, there is little research investigating these associations in reference to voluntary and involuntary singlehood and a specific type of emotional loneliness, that is, romantic loneliness. Therefore, the current study also intended to explore the theoretical model in which romantic loneliness is postulated to operate as a mediator of the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health (i.e., emotional, psychological and social well-being) and mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression) (see Fig. 1). In addition, since prior research suggested possible gender differences in the domain of romantic loneliness and mental health, the hypothesized mediation model was also intended to be tested separately in a sample of women and men.

Fig 1. Conceptual Model of Hypothesized Mediation: Voluntary vs. Involuntary as Predictor, and Romantic Loneliness as Mediator of Positive Mental Health and Mental Health Illness

As shown in Fig. 1, there are four paths in the model to be investigated: (1) Path c pertaining to the relation between the predictor (voluntary and involuntary singlehood) and the outcomes (positive mental health and mental health illness). Considering that prior research attempting to empirically link these constructs is scarce, it is, however, plausible to assume that voluntary singlehood will be related to more positive outcomes (a higher level of positive mental health and a lower level of mental health illness) than involuntary singlehood; (2) Path a pertaining to the relation between the predictor (voluntary and involuntary singlehood) and the mediator (romantic loneliness). Similarly, although no prior study examined the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and romantic loneliness, it is plausible to expect that voluntary singlehood will be related to lower romantic loneliness; (3) Path b pertaining to the relation between the mediator (romantic loneliness) and the outcome variables (positive mental health and mental health illness). The studies cited in previous sections provide strong evidence for the linkage between loneliness and mental health outcomes. Therefore, it is possible that also romantic loneliness will be associated with mental health outcomes, in particular higher levels of loneliness will be related to lower positive mental health and greater mental health illness; (4) Path c’ pertaining to the relation between the predictor (voluntary and involuntary singlehood) and the outcomes (positive mental health and mental health illness) when the mediator (romantic loneliness) is included in the model. This path was intended to be examined in the current study.

Present Study

Research Objectives and Hypotheses

The aim of the current study was twofold. The first objective was to investigate the possible differences between voluntarily and involuntarily single young adults, as well as between women and men in the domain of mental health (positive mental health and mental health illness) and romantic loneliness. Based on the literature presented in the previous sections, it was expected that:

Hypothesis 1: Voluntarily single young adults will report a higher level of positive mental health (i.e., emotional, psychological and social well-being) and total well-being than involuntarily single young adults.

Hypothesis 2: Voluntarily single young adults will report a lower level of mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression) and total mental health illness than involuntarily single young adults.

Hypothesis 3: Voluntarily single young adults will report lower level of romantic loneliness than involuntarily single young adults.

With respect to gender differences elaborated in the theoretical part of the paper, and considering that prior studies provided inconsistent results with respect to gender differences, two open research questions were formulated:

RQ1. Will women and men report similar levels of positive mental health, mental health illness, and romantic loneliness?

RQ2. Will be there an interaction of voluntary and involuntary singlehood and gender in the domain of positive mental health, mental health illness, and romantic loneliness?

The second major aim of the study was to explore the theoretical model in which romantic loneliness was postulated to be a mediator of the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ positive mental health and mental health illness. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 4: Romantic loneliness will mediate the association between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ positive mental health and mental health illness.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The study was carried out on a sample of university students from different faculties at a Polish university and non-students. Five hundred questionnaires were originally distributed. A total of 320 students and non-students returned questionnaires (64 % response rate).

Of these, 169 participants were removed because they were involved in a non-marital romantic relationships, married, divorced, separated, single without declaration if singlehood is to be perceived as voluntary or involuntary, or due to incomplete data, yielding a final sample of 151 single, heterosexual, never married, childless participants. University students constituted 68 % of the total sample (n = 103), while non-student participants with higher education level constituted 32 % of the total sample (n = 48). The age of participants ranged from 20 to 26 years, with the average being 22.48, and standard deviation of 2.01. Participants resided in a large Polish city with a population exceeding 500,000 inhabitants. Women represented 57 % (n = 86) and men 43 % of the sample (n = 65). Thirty respondents (19.87 %) indicated that in the past they had sought psychological/psychiatric help, whereas 121 respondents (80.13 %) indicated that in the past they had not sought this type of help.

All participants fitted into one of the two types of singlehood: (1) voluntary singlehood or (2) involuntary singlehood. First, being single was defined as “not in a committed relationship for at least 6 or more months, but wanting to become committed in the near future (within the next year or so)”, and being in a non-marital romantic relationship was defined as “in a committed non-marital relationship for at least 6 or more months, and wanting to be committed in the near future (within the next year or so)” (see Schachner et al. 2008). The criterion of 6 months was used to distinguish between single and partnered individuals arbitrary. It was based on prior study performed by Donnelly and Burgess (2008), which, however, referred to involuntary celibacy within long-term partnered relationship not to the lack of a lifetime partner. This criterion, however, helped to include people about whom we may say that their singlehood is a rather long-term situation rather than a short-term situation. Regarding this criterion, all participants who were single for a period shorter than 6 months were excluded from further analysis. Second, in the current study, voluntary singlehood was defined as being single for at least 6 months by one’s own decision, whereas involuntary singlehood was defined as being single for at least 6 months due to external circumstances perceived by an individual as not depending on him or her (see Donnelly and Burgess 2008). Participants who perceived their singlehood as voluntary constituted 53.60 % (n = 81) of the analyzed sample, whereas participants who perceived their singlehood as involuntary represented the remaining 46.40 % (n = 70) of the sample. Thirty three persons declared that they had never had a partner. The average duration of remaining single was 5.08 years, standard deviation of 7.35 years among 118 respondents who provided the duration of their singlehood. One hundred and one participants declared that they would like to have a partner in the future, while 10 participants declared that they would not like to have a partner in future. In terms of ethnicity, the sample included 100 % of Poles. In terms of religion, 106 participants (70.20 %) reported to be Catholic, whereas 45 participants (29.80 %) declared to be atheist.

The sample was recruited by author by distribution of the questionnaires through university students who were also asked to refer members of their social networks to participate in the investigation. The questionnaire packages were administered in classrooms to groups of 20 to 30 students at a time and participation was voluntary. The nonstudent participants were obtained through university students who passed questionnaires to members of their social networks. At the same time, university students were specifically instructed to not recruit their romantic partners and relatives into the study, but they were allowed to recruit friends. The purpose of the study was explained to participants along with an assurance of anonymity and explanation of their freedom to withdraw from the study without consequence. The study was conducted according to the ethical guidelines in the Polish Code of Professional Ethics for the Psychologist that apply to psychologists who are researchers and practitioners. Participants were not offered any compensation for their participation in the study.

Measures

Demographic Variables

The demographic variables in the study were as follows: age, gender, place of residence, education level, possessing children, sexual orientation, religion, current relationship status, duration of being single or being in a relationship, and desire to possess a partner in the future. These variables were assessed with straightforward single-item questions.

Mental Health - Emotional, Psychological and Social well-Being

To measure emotional and psychological well-being the Mental Health Continuum - Short Form (MHC – SF; Keyes 2009) (Polish adaptation – Karaś et al. 2014) was used. The MHC-SF consists of 14 items measuring emotional, psychological and social well-being. In the current study emotional and psychological well-being were used. Respondents are asked to answer questions about how they have been feeling during the past month using a scale ranging from 0(never) to 5 (every day). Example items are: “During the past month, how often did you feel happy?” (emotional well-being) and “During the past month, how often did you feel that you had warm and trusting relationships with others?” (psychological well-being). The short form of the MHC has shown excellent internal consistency (> .80) and discriminant validity in the case of adolescents (ages 12–18) and adults in the U.S., the Netherlands and South Africa (Keyes 2009). In the present study the internal consistency for the subscales was as follows: α = .89 for Emotional well-being, α = .84 for Psychological well-being, α = .75 for Social well-being, and α = .90 for the Total mental health.

Mental Health Illness

To measure mental health illness the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28; Goldberg and Hillier 1979) (Polish adaptation – Goldberg et al. 2001). The General Health Questionnaire is a self-administered questionnaire used to measure non-psychotic psychiatric disorders (Goldberg and Hillier 1979). The GHQ-28 scale was derived from the original 60-item version of the questionnaire mainly for research purposes but it is also often used as a measure of psychological well-being (e.g., Goldberg and Williams 1988). GHQ-28 consists of four 7-item scales: somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. The respondent is asked to compare his recent psychological state with his usual state on a 4-point response scale. For each item the four possible answers are as follows:1 – not at all, 2 – no more than usual, 3 – rather more than usual, 4 – much more than usual. In the current study the bimodal scoring procedure (0, 0, 1, 1) was applied. Using the conventional bimodal GHQ scoring method there is a range of 0–28 with a score above a threshold of 4 indicative of psychiatric disorder. In the present study the internal consistency for the subscales was the following: α = .73 for Somatic symptoms, α = .81 for Anxiety, α = .75 for Social dysfunction, α = .82 for Severe depression, and α = .90 for the Total scale.

Romantic Loneliness

I used the 5-item romantic loneliness subscale from The Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults - Short Form (SELSA-S; DiTommaso et al. 2004) (Polish adaptation - Adamczyk and DiTommaso 2014), using 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree), to measure romantic loneliness. This subscale has demonstrated adequate validity and reliability in prior research (e.g., DiTommaso et al. 2004). An example item is “In the last month had a romantic partner with whom I shared my most intimate thoughts and feelings.” In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for romantic loneliness subscale was α = .70.

Voluntary Vs. Involuntary Singlehood

The voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood was assessed with the following item: “Being single is a result of …” (options “My decision” or “External circumstances beyond my control”).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

As a starting point, a univariate analysis of variance was performed on the demographic variables to evaluate the mean differences in the variables between voluntary and involuntary single young adults as well as between women and men.

Results indicated that voluntarily and involuntarily single individuals did not differ in regard to their age, F(1, 147) = 0.90, p = 348, η 2 = .01, gender, χ2(1, N = 151) = 1.86, p = .173, place of residence, Cramer’s V (5, N = 151) = .23, p = .156, education level, Cramer’s V (4, N = 151) = .14, p = .562, or the duration of remaining single, F(1114) = 3.33, p = .071, η 2 = .03. Both groups also did not differ in regard to their use of psychological/psychiatric help in the past, χ2(1, N = 151) = 0.50, p = .494.

With respect to gender, women and men differed in regard to age with men being older (M = 23.08, SD = 2.62) than women (M = 22.29, SD = 2.10), F(1) = 5.33, p = .022, η 2 = .04. Significant differences were observed between women and men in regard to their education level, Cramer’s V (4, N = 151) = .27, p = .030, with a greater number of women reporting higher education levels than men. Women and men did not differ in regard to their duration of remaining single, F(1, 114) = 1.88, =.174, η 2 = .02, but at the same time there was an interaction of voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood and gender for the duration of remaining single, F(1, 114) = 6.02, p = .016, η 2 = .05. In an attempt to explain this interactional effect, an analysis of the simple main effect of voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood in the group of women and men was performed. Results of this analysis indicated a significant simple main effect of voluntary and involuntary singlehood and gender for the duration of remaining single in the group of men, F(1, 49) = 4.54, p = .038, η 2 = .09, whereas a simple main effect of voluntary and involuntary singlehood and gender for the duration of remaining single in the group of women occurred to be nonsignificant, F(1, 65) = 0.54, p = .466, η 2 = .01. Voluntarily single men reported lower duration of remaining single (M = 17.67 months, SD = 18.23 months) than involuntarily single men (M = 39.28 months, SD = 53.14 months). Women and men did not differ in regard to their place of residence, Cramer’s V (5, N = 151) = .20, p = .313, and use of psychological/psychiatric help in the past, χ2(1, N = 151) = 2.83, p = .092.

Next, the bivariate correlations among the major variables were assessed (see Table 1).

Table 1. Bevariate correlations among major variables. N = 151. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05

Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks were used and correlations of .20 as small, correlations of .30 as moderate, and correlations of .50 as large were regarded. Results indicated that most of the correlations were moderate and strong. Only the correlations between measurements of well-being and romantic loneliness were insignificant, with the exception of the correlation between somatic symptoms and romantic loneliness, which was moderate and positive.

Substantive Analyses

Differences in Positive Mental Health

Regarding the strong correlations between emotional, psychological and social well-being, (see Table 2) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to examine the differences between voluntarily and involuntarily single young adults.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, effect sizes, and significance levels for voluntarily and involuntarily single individuals. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05

The performed analysis revealed a nonsignificant multivariate effect of voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood on emotional, psychological, social and total well-being, Wilks’s Λ = .97, F(3, 145) = 1.62, p = .147, η 2 = .03. Voluntarily and involuntarily single young adults reported similar levels of emotional well-being, F(1, 147) = 0.36, p = .555, η 2 = .00, psychological well-being, F(1, 147) = 3.47, p = .064, η 2 = .02, social well-being, F(1, 147) = 0.19, p = .666, η 2 = .00, and total well-being, F(1, 147) = 1.52, p = .219, η 2 = .01.

Differences in Mental Health Illness

As with positive mental health, regarding the strong correlations between indicators of mental health illness (see Table 2), a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to examine the differences between voluntarily and involuntarily single young adults.

The performed analysis revealed a nonsignificant multivariate effect of voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood on somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, severe depression, and total mental health illness, Wilks’s Λ = .95, F(4, 144) = 2.03, p = .094, η 2 = .05.

As Table 2 shows, voluntarily and involuntarily single young adults did not differ in regard to somatic symptoms, F(1, 147) = 3.64, p = .058, η 2 = .02, anxiety and insomnia, F(1, 147) = 7.29, p = .008, η 2 = .05, social dysfunction, F(1, 147) = 3.02, p = .085, η 2 = .02, severe depression, F(1, 147) = 4.20, p = .042, η 2 = .03, and total mental health illness, F(1, 147) = 7.63, p = .006, η 2 = .05.

Differences in Romantic Loneliness

A univariate analysis of variance (see Table 2) demonstrated that voluntarily single young adults reported lower romantic loneliness than involuntarily single young adults, F(1, 147) = 32.56, p = .000, η 2 = .18.

Gender Differences

With respect to positive mental health, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a nonsignificant multivariate effect of gender on positive mental health, Wilks’s Λ = .98, F(3, 145) = 0.97, p = .410, η2 = .02. In light of the results of the analysis (see Table 3), it can be stated that no gender differences exist in regard to emotional well-being, F(1, 147) = 1.11, p = .293, η2 = .01, psychological well-being, F(1, 147) = 1.14, p = .288, η2 = .01,social well-being, F(1, 147) = 0.04, p = .837, η2 = .00, and total well-being, F(1, 147) = 0.52, p = .475, η2 = .00. The performed analysis also did not reveal an interactional effect of gender and voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood on positive mental health, Wilks’s Λ = .99, F(3, 145) = 0.28, p = .839, η2 = .00.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, effect sizes, and significance levels for women and men

In regard to mental health illness, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (see Table 3) revealed a nonsignificant multivariate effect of gender, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(4, 144) = 1.37, p = .247, η 2 = .04. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that women and men did not differ in the domain of somatic symptoms, F(1, 147) = 2.95, p = .088, η 2 = .02, anxiety and insomnia, F(1, 147) = 0.66, p = .416, η 2 = .00, social dysfunction, F(1, 147) = 3.78, p = .054, η 2 = .03, severe depression, F(1, 147) = 0.83, p = .364, η 2 = .00, and total mental health illness, F(1, 147) = 2.99, p = .086, η 2 = .02. At the same time, no interactional effect of gender and voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood on mental health illness emerged to be significant, Wilks’s Λ = .99, F(4, 144) = 0.23, p = .922, η 2 = .01.

In the domain of romantic loneliness, a univariate analysis of variance revealed that women reported higher levels of romantic loneliness than men, F(1, 147) = 6.52, p = .012, η 2 = .04 (see Table 3). At the same time, no interactional effect of gender and voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood was observed to be significant, F(1, 147) = 0.86, p = .355, η 2 = .01.

Tests of Mediation Model

The final set of analyses examined the mediating role of romantic loneliness in the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health, and mental health illness (see Figure 1). In order to establish the mediation effect of romantic loneliness, four steps (involving three regression equations) were performed in line with the method for testing mediation in psychological research as outlined by Baron and Kenny’s (1986) and other researchers (Frazier et al. 2004). In order to make them more concise and available in one place, all the results of the testing mediation are presented in Table 4. The tests of mediation effect of romantic loneliness were preformed separately for each of the seven outcomes, that is, for emotional well-being (Outcome 1), psychological well-being (Outcome 2), social well-being (Outcome 3), somatic symptoms (Outcome 4), anxiety and depression (Outcome 5), social dysfunction (Outcome 6), and severe depression (Outcome 7).

Table 4. Testing mediator effects using multiple regression. VIS = Voluntary and involuntary singlehood; EWB = Emotional well-being; PWB = Psychological well-being; SWB = Social well-being; SS Somatic symptoms; AI = Anxiety and insomnia; SDYS = Social dysfunction; SDEP = Severe depression; RL = Romantic loneliness. a0 = voluntary singlehood, 1 = involuntary singlehood. *** p < .001; **p < .01; * p < .05

In the first step, the outcome variables (see the above-mentioned outcomes) were regressed on the predictor (voluntary and involuntary singlehood) to establish if there is an effect to mediate (see Path c in Fig. 1). The simple linear regression analysis revealed that Path c was significant only for somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, and severe depression. The performed analysis revealed that voluntary and involuntary singlehood was not predictive of any of the indicators of positive mental health and social dysfunction as an indicator of mental health illness.

In the second step, the mediator (romantic loneliness) was regressed on the predictor variable (voluntary and involuntary singlehood) to establish Path a (see Fig. 1). The performed analysis indicated that voluntary and involuntary singlehood was associated with romantic loneliness, explaining the 18 % of variance in romantic loneliness.

Finally, in the third step, in order to test whether romantic loneliness was related to each of the seven outcomes, the outcomes were regressed simultaneously on both romantic loneliness and the predictor (voluntary and involuntary singlehood). The coefficients associated with the associations between romantic loneliness and all seven outcomes (controlling for predictor) were nonsignificant. Thus, the condition for Step 3 was not met (Path b was nonsignificant). This third regression equation also provided an estimate of Path c’, the relation between predictor and seven outcomes, controlling for romantic loneliness. When that path is zero, there is complete mediation. However, Path c’ for all seven outcomes was not significant. Therefore, this final criterion in the mediation test was not met.

In sum, the analysis of mediation of romantic loneliness in the linkage between voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood, positive mental health, and mental health illness demonstrated that this mediation is not significant. There was significant direct relationship (Path c; see Fig. 1) between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and somatic symptoms (β = .16, p = .049), anxiety and insomnia (β = .21, p = .008), and severe depression (β = .18, p = .032), and significant direct relationship (Path a; see Fig. 1) between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and romantic loneliness (β = .43, p = .000).

Since the performed analyses revealed only direct effects of voluntary and involuntary singlehood on somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, severe depression, and romantic loneliness, moderation analysis with gender as a moderator was performed only for those outcomes (see Table 5). The moderation analysis was performed in the PROCESS module within SPSS 23.

Table 5. Testing moderator effects of gender on the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, and severe depression

Results presented in Table 5 indicated that gender did not operate as a moderator of the linkage between somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, and severe depression.

Discussion

The objective of the present study was to investigate whether voluntary singlehood (singlehood by choice) and involuntary singlehood (singlehood not by choice) are related to romantic loneliness, positive mental health and mental illness in a group of single Polish young adults. In addition, special attention was paid to gender differences in regard to domain of romantic loneliness, positive mental health and mental health illness. The present study also intended to expand prior research on singlehood in young adulthood by exploring a theoretical model in which romantic loneliness was postulated to mediate between voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood and mental health outcomes.

The major findings obtained in the presented study did not provide evidence for the hypotheses (H1 and H2) predicting that voluntary single young adults will report higher level of positive mental health and lower level of mental health illness. The present study showed that voluntary and involuntary single young adults differed neither in regard to emotional, psychological, social well-being or total well-being, nor in regard to mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, severe depression, and total mental illness). At the same time, performed analyses supported the third hypothesis (H3) which assumes that voluntary single young adults experience lower level of romantic loneliness than involuntary single young adults. The results from the current study add to the complexity of singlehood captured from the perspective of its voluntary vs. involuntary nature. The lack of differences in the domain of positive mental health and mental health illness, contradict popular social stereotypes of singles perceived as miserable, unhappy, insecure, more neurotic, less satisfied with their lives, with lower self-esteem, less satisfied with their relationship status, and desiring to change their relationship status when compared to partnered individuals (DePaulo and Morris 2005; Greitemeyer 2009). This positive view of voluntary singlehood may be related to the fact that nowadays singlehood is often assumed to be an expression of individualization and individualistic attitudes and the expanded freedom of people’s choice (Poortman and Liefbroer 2010). Moreover, this new perception of singlehood as a consciously and voluntarily chosen lifestyle was noticed already by Stein in Stein 1975, who in his qualitative study analyzed singlehood as a positive choice made by adults who chose not to marry or re-marry. Furthermore, the results obtained in the present study seem to support observations made by some researchers that negative associations with singlehood may not be accurate, and that a more contemporary singlehood may represent choice and be associated with positive outcomes such as happiness (Keith 2003).

At the same time, the present study suggests that regardless of whether one’s singlehood is perceived as a result of personal choice or caused by some external circumstances, it is related to the experience of romantic loneliness; however, the level of this loneliness is lower among those who chose their singlehood. The association of romantic loneliness with voluntary vs. involuntary singlehood revealed in the current investigation may support the results from a prior study by Poortman and Liefbroer (2010), indicating that despite greater freedom that young adults nowadays have in the area of the possibility of shaping and directing their life paths, they generally choose to commit rather than to stay single (Poortman and Liefbroer 2010). Indeed, if young adults prefer being committed to remaining single, the experience of romantic loneliness by single individuals is not surprising. Furthermore, the presented results emphasize the significance of the need to belong as a fundamental human motivation (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Although this need can be satisfied in a variety of frequent positive interactions with other people within the context of long-term caring relationships (e.g., friendships, relationships with parents and siblings), during adulthood, romantic partners assume a special position in the network of attachment figures and become a primary attachment figure (Rowe and Carnelley 2005). Moreover, most people prefer to have a romantic partner than to be single (Greitemeyer 2009), and the vast majority of singles are more positive about living together than about living apart from a partner (Poortman and Liefbroer 2010). Therefore, considering that single individuals do not have a romantic partner, they experience romantic loneliness, especially when they do not perceive their singlehood as voluntary and depending on their personal decision.

In the current study two open research questions (RQ1 and RQ2) were formulated with respect to gender differences in the domain of positive mental health, mental health illness, romantic loneliness, and the possibility of interaction between voluntary and involuntary singlehood and gender. The performed analyses demonstrated no difference in the level of positive mental health or mental health illness, and no interactional effect of voluntary and involuntary singlehood and gender. Lack of gender differences in the domain of positive mental health and mental health illness may be related to contemporary changes of a diminishing pattern of gender differences in the sphere of intimacy during young adulthood (Feldman et al. 1998). These changes are thought to contribute to acknowledging the benefits deriving from intimacy and closeness with a partner by men (Feldman et al. 1998). Thus, as gender differences in the domain of romantic relationships appear to diminish, it is possible that men and women have similar experiences in the domain of romantic relationships, and as result, they experience similar levels of positive mental health and mental health illness. This explanation would be congruent with Simon and Barrett’ (2010) indication of the complexity of the association between non-marital romantic relationships and young adults’ mental health, which is of special importance in relation to the contemporary changes in young adults’ lifestyles, including being single, living apart together, and cohabitation without marriage (Lehnart et al. 2010), and in men’s and women’s roles (Simon 2002). These notions could also explain whether gender in the current study was not found to moderate the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health and mental illness.

Although in the current study single women and men did not differ in the domain of positive mental health and mental health illness, they differed in regard to romantic loneliness which higher levels reported by women. In literature, women are depicted as having a stronger interest in establishing close, dyadic social ties (Feldman et al. 1998; Stokes and Levin 1986), and also, in line with commonplace beliefs, that men are less willing to connect with others than women (Schmitt 2008). As a result, single women, regardless of the nature of their singlehood (voluntary vs. involuntary), may experience higher romantic loneliness than single men.

Finally, in line with the fourth hypothesis, it was expected that romantic loneliness would mediate the linkage between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health and mental health illness. The set of mediation analyses separately performed for emotional, psychological and social well-being (positive mental health) and for indicators of mental health illness (i.e., somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression) revealed that romantic loneliness does not operate as a mediator for the relationship between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, positive mental health and mental health illness. It is also possible that the mediating role of romantic loneliness was not detected in the current study due to the lower reliability of the scale used to measure romantic loneliness variable. As suggested in literature, the mediating variable should be measured with a reliability of at least .90. (Mallinckrodt et al. 2006). In result, lower reliability of the interaction term increases its standard error and reduces the power of the test (Frazier et al. 2004). Thus, the more reliable measure of romantic loneliness and larger sample sizes would have revealed mediation of romantic loneliness that was not discernible in the current study, but the present results suggest that such mediation may not exist.

The performed analyses demonstrated the direct relationships between voluntary and involuntary singlehood, somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, severe depression, and romantic loneliness. Specifically, higher levels of these indicators of mental health illness (the weak associations) and higher level of romantic loneliness (the moderate association) were predicted by involuntary singlehood. Thus, the outcomes of involuntary singlehood do not seem to be so detrimental as Adelman and Ahuvia (1991, p. 273) pointed, writing that “Involuntary singleness can be a profound source of pain for many adults.” At the same time, the associations observed in the current study, however weak and moderate, suggest that when people have the need to possess a partner/spouse and when this need is unsatisfied, they may experience symptoms of psychological distress. For example, Mellor et al. (2008) found that the unmet need to belong was associated with loneliness, suggesting that a failure in satisfying belongingness needs may contribute to social isolation, alienation, and loneliness. Thus, in light of the obtained results, remaining single, if an individual’s choice, seems to be related to lower psychological distress.

Limitation and Future Directions

Several factors specific to the present study limit the conclusions that can be drawn from this article. Several factors specific to the present study limit the conclusions that can be drawn. First, because of the cross-sectional nature of the study, it cannot be determined whether being single (voluntarily or involuntarily) is a cause or consequence of positive mental health and mental health illness, and longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the nature of these associations over time. This issue is of special importance in light of research indicating two possible explanations of the linkage between marital status and mental and physical health. Specifically, in line with the social selection hypothesis, better-adjusted, healthier people become and remain married, and this selection effect accounts for observed group differences between married and unmarried people (e.g., Horn et al. 2013). In particular, psychological well-being or mental health may influence the probability of staying in a marriage, and, in addition, less stable personality traits may enhance the risk of marital dissolution and contribute to lower psychological well-being (Mastekaasa 1994). In turn, in line with the social causation hypothesis marriage offers a variety of benefits which causes positive changes and/or protects against negative changes in mental or physical health (Horn et al. 2013). Thus, the lack of material resources is detrimental to the health among unmarried people (Wyke and Ford 1992). Prior longitudinal studies demonstrated that the above-mentioned hypotheses indicate that mental health is a consequence as well as a cause of marital status (e.g., Mastekaasa 1992). Regarding this issue, future research would benefit from longitudinal assessments of the relationship between status and mental health. Second, the sample size used in the current study is relatively small and consisted solely of heterosexual participants living in Poland. Therefore, the results may not generalize to individuals of other sexual orientations, in particular gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people whose mental health wellbeing may be at risk as suggested by Fergusson et al. (1999). This has also been suggested by a more recent study, in which among participants under the age of 35 years, lesbian/gay identity was associated with an increased risk of symptoms of common mental disorders (Semlyen et al. 2016). Third, Poland, despite many social changes regarding marital and family life, is still a country of traditional values, in which most adolescents and young adults desire to marry and have a successful marital and family life (e.g., Rostowski 2009). Therefore, this specific social and cultural context may impact the experiences associated with singlehood. Further research should include larger samples and participants from Western cultures to examine the possibility that the more individualistic and nontraditional social context has influence on the effects of voluntary versus involuntary singlehood. Forth, future studies, for instance in research of qualitative nature, should carefully consider subjective and objective reasons for singlehood, and their associations with loneliness and mental health. This issue may be of special concern regarding the diversity of single status and reasons for singlehood (i.e., never-married, divorced, separated, widowed) (Cotten 1999; DePaulo and Morris 2005), which may translate into various aspects of singlehood. For instance, in White’s study (Mastekaasa 1992), individuals who had always been single were in better health than people who were married, divorced, separated, or widowed. In addition, it is important to note that the distinction between personal choice and external circumstances as a cause of singlehood may not be so clear and evident, and it seems to be rather related to subjective perceptions of singlehood by an individual than merely to objective circumstances.

Despite these limitations and the initial nature of findings, the present study highlights the importance of further research on the voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ mental health and other correlates and outcomes such as self-esteem, perceived social support, attitudes towards one’s own singlehood and involuntary childlessness.

References

Aanes, M. M., Mittelmark, M. B., & Hetland, J. (2010). Interpersonal stress and poor health: the mediating role of loneliness. European Psychologist, 15(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adamczyk, K. (2015). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support among single and partnered young adults. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7.

Adamczyk, K., & DiTommaso, E. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA-S). Psychological Topics, 23(3), 327–341 UDK – 159.923.33.072-057.875(438).Google Scholar

Adamczyk, K., & Segrin, C. (2015a). Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered Polish young adults. Current Psychology, 34(1), 82–96. doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9242-5.

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

Adelman, M. B., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1991). Mediated channels for mate seeking: A solution to involuntary singlehood? Critical Studies in Mass Media, 8(3), 273–289. doi: 10.1080/15295039109366798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austrom, D. R., & Hanel, K. (1985). Psychological issues of single life in Canada: An exploratory study. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 12–23.Google Scholar

Baranowska-Rataj, A., Matysiak, A., & Mynarska, M. (2013). Does lone motherhood decrease women’s happiness? Evidence from qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9486-z.Google Scholar

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),1173–1182.Google Scholar

Barrett, A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(4), 451–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

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. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

Bernardon, S., Babb, K. A., Hakim-Larson, J., & Gragg, M. (2011). Loneliness, attachment, and the perception and use of social support in university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43(1), 40–51. doi: 10.1037/a0021199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bierman, A., Fazio, E. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). A multifaceted approach to the mental health advantage of the married. Assessing how explanations vary by outcome measure and unmarried group. Journal of Family Issues, 27(4), 554–582. doi: 10.1177/0192513X05284111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boyd, D., Bee, H. (2008). Psychologia rozwoju człowieka [Psychology of human development]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braun-Gałkowska, M. (2008). Psychologia domowa [Domestic psychology]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140–151. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cotten, S. R. (1999). Marital status and mental health revisited: examining the importance of risk factors and resources. Family Relations, 48(3), 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cramer, K. M., & Neyedley, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in loneliness: The role of masculinity and femininity. Sex Role, 38(7/8), 645–653. doi: 10.1023/A:1018850711372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, Development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. doi: 10.1037/a0012801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DePaulo, B., & Morris, W. (2005). Singles in society and science. Psychological Inquiry, 2–3, 57–83.Google Scholar

DiTommaso, E., & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 127–134. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90182-3.

DiTommaso, E., Brannen-McNulty, C., Ross, L., & Burgess, M. (2003). Attachment styles, social skills and loneliness in young adults. Personality and Individual Difference, 35(2), 303–312. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00190-3.

DiTommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Best, L. A. (2004). Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 99–119. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DiTommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Burgess, M. (2005). The universality of relationship characteristics: a cross-cultural comparison of different types of attachment and loneliness in Canadian and visiting Chinese students. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(1), 57–68. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.57.

DiTommaso, E., Turbide, J., Poulin, C., & Robinson, B. (2007). A French-Canadian adaptation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 339–350 . URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1882/31243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donnelly, D., & Burgess, E. (2008). The decision to remain in an involuntarily celibate relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 519–535. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00498.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dykstra, P. A., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Gender and marital-history differences in emotional and social loneliness among Dutch older adults. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 23, 141–155. doi: 10.1353/cja.2004.0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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. doi: 10.1080/01973530701330843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, S. S., Gowen, L. K. G., & Fisher, L. (1998). Family relationships and gender as predictors of romantic intimacy in young adults: a longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(2), 263–286. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0802_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(10), 876–880.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Frazier, P., Arikian, N., Benson, S., Losoff, A., & Maurer, S. (1996). Desire for marriage and life satisfaction among unmarried heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 225–239. doi: 10.1177/0265407596132004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gigy, L. L. (1980). Self-concept of single women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(2), 321–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00965.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1988). The changing relationship of marital status to reported happiness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(2), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the general health questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9(1), 139–145. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700021644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER NELSON Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar

Goldberg D., Williams P., Makowska Z., & Merecz D. (2001). Ocena zdrowia psychicznego na podstawie badań kwestionariuszami Davida Goldberga. Podręcznik dla użytkowników kwestionariuszy GHQ-12 i GHQ-28. Łódź: Instytut Medycyny Pracy im Prof J. Nofera.Google Scholar

Gore, J. S. (2014). The influence of close others in daily goal pursuit. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(1), 71–92. doi: 10.1177/0265407513486976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Stereotypes of singles: are singles what we think? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 368–383. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359, 1435–1446. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, E. E., Xu, Y., Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., & Emery, E. E. (2013). Accounting for the physical and mental health benefits of entry into marriage: a genetically informed study of selection and causation. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 30–41. doi: 10.1037/a0029803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

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

Jakobsson, U., & Hallberg, I. R. (2005). Loneliness, fear, and guilty of life among elderly in Sweden: a gender perspective. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 17(6), 494–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Kamp Dush, C. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. doi: 10.1177/0265407505056438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karaś, D., Cieciuch, J., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2014). The polish adaptation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Tannahill, C., & Ellaway, A. (2015). Loneliness, social relations and health and well-being in deprived communities. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(3), 332–344. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2014.940354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keith, P. (2003). Resources, family ties, and well-being of never-married men and women,. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 42(2), 51–75. doi: 10.1300/J083v42n02_05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Atlanta: Brief description of the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF). Retrieved from http://www.sociology.emory.edu/ckeyes/[22.08.2012]

Keyes, C. L. M., & Simoes, E. J. (2012). To flourish or not: positive mental health and all-cause mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), 2164–2172. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300918.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Lamers, S. M. A., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99–110. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20741.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Lechner, L., Bolman, C., & van Dalen, A. (2006). Definite involuntary childlessness: associations between coping, social support and psychological distress. Human Reproduction, 22(1), 288–294. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Lehnart, J., Neyer, F. J., & Eccles, J. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: the case of partnering in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 639–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1998). Always single and single again women: a qualitative study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23(2), 115–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1997.tb00238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, L., Jin, X., Brown, M. J., & Feldman, M. W. (2014). Involuntary bachelorhood in rural China: a social network perspective. Population, 69(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372–378. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and psychological well-being: some evidence on selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(4), 901–911. doi: 10.2307/353171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mastekaasa, A. (1994). Psychological well-being and marital dissolution: selection effects? Journal of Family Issues, 15(2), 208–228. doi: 10.1177/0192513X94015002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y., & Cummin, R. (2008). Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 213–218. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morris, W. L., & Osburn, B. K. (2016). Do you take this marriage? Perceived choice over marital status affects the stereotypes of single and married people. In K. Adamczyk (Ed.), Singlehood from individual and social perspectives (pp. 145–162). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Filip Lohner.Google Scholar

Næss, S., Blekesaune, M., & Jakobsson, N. (2015). Marital transitions and life satisfaction: Evidencefrom longitudinal data from Norway. Acta Sociologica, 58(1), 63–78. doi: 10.1177/0001699314563841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palus, K. (2010). Wybrane psychologiczne uwarunkowania braku partnera życiowego w okresie wczesnej dorosłości [Selected psychological factors of the lack of a lifetime partner in young adulthood]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Nauk Społecznych UAM.Google Scholar

Poortman, A. R., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). Singles’ relational attitudes in a time of individualization. Social Science Research, 39(6), 938–949. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prabhakar, B. (2011). Causes for remaining single. A comparative study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 6(2), 203–210.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., & Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and chance: negotiating agency in narratives of singleness. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 331–351. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00708.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rokach, A., & Brock, H. (1998). Coping with loneliness. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rostowski, J. (2009). Współczesne przemiany rozumienia związku małżeńskiego. In T. Rostowska (Ed.), Psychologia rodziny. Małżeństwo i rodzina wobec współczesnych wyzwań [Psychology of family. Marriage and family in the face of contemporary challenges ](pp. 15–46). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin.Google Scholar

Rowe, A. C., & Carnelley, K. B. (2005). Preliminary support for the use of a hierarchical mapping technique to examine attachment networks. Personal Relationships, 12, 499–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00128.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, D., Cutrona, C. . E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: an exploration of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1313–1321. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313.

Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, O. (2008). Attachment style and long-term singlehood. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 479–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00211.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Evolutionary perspectives on romantic attachment and culture. How ecological stressors influence dismissing orientations across genders and geographies. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(3), 220–247. doi: 10.1177/1069397108317485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Semlyen, J., King, M., Varney, J., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2016). Sexual orientation and symptoms of common mental disorder or low wellbeing: combined meta-analysis of 12 UK population health surveys. BMC Psychiatry, 16(67). doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0767-z.

Simon, R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1065–1096. doi: 10.1086/339225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in early adulthood: does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(2), 168–182. doi: 10.1177/0022146510372343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

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. doi: 10.1177/0265407508093789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, P. J. (1975). Singlehood: an alternative to marriage. The Family Coordinator, 24(4), 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, P. J. (1981). Understanding single adulthood. In P. J. Stein (Ed.), Single Life: Unmarried adults in social context (pp. 9–21). New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Stickley, A., Koyanagi, A., Leinsalu, M., Ferlander, S., Sabawoond, W., & McKee, M. (2015). Loneliness and health in Eastern Europe: findings from Moscow, Russia. Public Health, 129(4), 403–410. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.12.021.

Stokes, J., & Levin, I. (1986). Gender differences in predicting loneliness from social network characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1069–1074. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1069.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Wadsworth, T. (2016). Marriage and subjective well-being: how and why context matters. Social Indicators Research, 126, 1025–1048. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0930-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, S. R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolations. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Westerhof, G. J., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2010). Mental illness and mental health: The two continua model across the lifespan. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 110–119. doi: 10.1007/s10804-009-9082-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Willitts, M., Benzeval, M., & Stansfeld, S. (2004). Partnership history and mental health over time. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 58(1), 53–58. doi: 10.1136/jech.58.1.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wyke, S., & Ford, G. (1992). Competing explanations for associations between marital status and health. Social Science & Medicine, 34(5), 523–532. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90208-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

#interpersonal relationships #voluntary singlehood #involuntary singlehood #positive mental health #mental health #illness #romantic loneliness #loneliness #young adults #studies #gender differences

0 notes

xtruss · 5 months

Text

The U-Bend Of Life! Why, Beyond Middle Age, People Get Happier As They Get Older

— Published: December 16th 2010 | Thursday December 07, 2023

Statisticians trawl through the vast quantities of data these surveys produce rather as miners panning for gold. They are trying to find the answer to the perennial question: what makes people happy?

The View From Winter

Turn the question upside down, and the pattern still appears. When the British Labour Force Survey asks people whether they are depressed, the U-bend becomes an arc, peaking at 46.

Happier, No Matter What

Death of Ambition, Birth of Acceptance

— This Article Appeared in the Christmas Specials Section of the Print Edition Under the Headline "The U-Bend of Life"

#Christmas Specials | Age and Happiness #The U-Bend of Life

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs