MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School

MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation of Jessica E. Donn

Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Karen Maitland Schilling, Ph.D.

______Director, Graduate School Representative Sally A. Lloyd, Ph.D.

______Reader Carl E. Paternite, Ph.D.

______Reader Rose Marie Ward, Ph.D. ABSTRACT

ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND WELL-BEING OF MIDLIFE NEVER MARRIED SINGLES

by Jessica Emily Donn

This study examined the relationships between psychological and subjective well-being and adult development for heterosexual, never-married singles, ages 35-45, using the conceptual frameworks developed by Baxter-Magolda (1999), Kegan (1982) and Levinson (1978). Pathways outside the traditionally sanctioned course through marriage were considered viable alternatives and adult development was viewed as an ongoing process of moving between consolidation and reassessment of identity and life meaning. Tasks for single adult development (Lewis, 1994, 2001; Schwartzberg, Berliner & Jacob, 1995) within a society that emphasizes marriage as the gateway to adulthood were also examined. Variables traditionally associated with research on life-satisfaction were examined in relation to never-married singles. Participants included 171 self-identified heterosexual, never-married singles, ages 35-45, not currently living with a romantic partner. Participants completed questionnaire measures of SES, psychological well-being, life satisfaction and positive and negative affect. They also completed measures of singlehood developmental tasks and consolidation/evaluation of identity that were developed as part of the study. The Construction of Identity Location (COIL) measure used the IDEA (Reifman, Arnett & Colwell, 2003) as a basis and resulted in three subscales: constriction, equilibrium, and exploration. The Singlehood Development Scale (SDS) was based on Schwartzberg et al.’s and Lewis’ tasks for singles across the lifespan. The SDS contains 10 subscales: Positive Family Relations, Community, Attempts to Meet Mate, Lack of Interest in Marriage, Work, Care in Old Age, Sexual Fulfillment, Friendship, Avoid Thinking about Aging, and Child Role. Ryff’s (1989) Scales of Psychological Well-Being were revised in this study and resulted in five subscales, including accomplishment, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, and personal growth. Regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to examine factors that contribute to midlife singles’ subjective well-being. Social/relational ties, meaningful work and financial stability were found to play important roles in singles’ well-being. Accomplishments and freedom to make choices were also found to be important to singles. Some gender differences were found for single men and women. The complexity of singles’ well-being is discussed, and results are viewed in the context of adult development.

ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND WELL-BEING OF MIDLIFE NEVER MARRIED SINGLES

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology

Jessica Emily Donn Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2005

Dissertation Directors: Karen Maitland Schilling, Ph.D. and Sally A. Lloyd, Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... iii List of Figures...... iv Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Models of Adult Development...... 4 Kegan’s model...... 5 Levinson’s model...... 6 Baxter-Magolda’s and Arnett’s Models of Emerging Adulthood ...... 12 The Theories in Conversation- How well do they work together?...... 13 Singlehood Development Tasks ...... 29 Marital Status and Well-being ...... 32 Between group studies: Comparing married and single persons ...... 32 Within group studies: Singles’ well-being...... 35 Well-Being and Life Satisfaction...... 36 Research Questions ...... 38 Chapter 2: Focus Groups...... 38 Method...... 38 Results ...... 39 Discussion...... 45 Chapter 3: Measure development ...... 47 Method...... 47 Construction of Identity Location (COIL) ...... 51 Results ...... 53 Discussion...... 55 Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB)...... 57 Results ...... 58 Discussion...... 61 Singlehood Development Scale (SDS)...... 68 Results ...... 69 Discussion...... 72 Chapter 4: Examining Singlehood Development and Well-Being...... 78 Method...... 78 Results ...... 80 Discussion...... 84 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ...... 88 Chapter 5: Practical Implications and Conclusions ...... 89 Bibliography ...... 94 Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………...104 Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………..133 Appendices…………………………………………………………………….……………..…164

List of Tables

Table 1 Breakdown of surveys removed based on limiting criteria Table 2 Varimax Loadings and Item Descriptions for 12-item Construction of Identity Location Scale Table 3 Fit Indices for Exploratory Construction of Identity Location Models Table 4 Interfactor Correlations for the COIL Three Oblique Factors Model Table 5 Varimax Loadings and Item Description for 20-item Scales of Psychological Well-Being Table 6 Fit Indices for Exploratory Scales of Psychological Well-Being Models Table 7 Interfactor Correlations for the SPWB Three Oblique Factors Model Table 8 Gender difference scores on SPWB Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations on SPWB for having someone to turn to in times of distress Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations on SPWB for race Table 11 Varimax Loadings and Item Description for 24-item Singlehood Development Scale Table 12 Variance accounted for by factors of the SDS Table 13 Fit Indices for Exploratory Singlehood Development Models Table 14 Interfactor Correlations for the SDS Ten Oblique Factors Model Table 15 Correlations of Income and Education with SDS subscales Table 16 SDS gender difference scores Table 17 Means and Standard Deviations on SDS for desire to change relationship status if they could Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations on SDS for having someone to turn to in times of distress Table 19 Correlations Between Demographic and Social Characteristics Table 20 Regression Analysis for Life Satisfaction of Never-Married Men and Women Table 21 Regression Analysis for Positive Affect of Never-Married Men and Women Table 22 Regression Analysis for Negative Affect of Never-Married Men and Women Table 23 Correlations for the Criterion and Predictor Variables Table 24 Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum and Maximum Scores for all Major Constructs Table 25 Standardized Parameter Estimates for Singles’ Well-Being Model

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Exploratory COIL Model with 1 Variable Figure 2 Exploratory COIL Model with 3 Correlated Variables Figure 3 Exploratory COIL Model with 3 first order Variables and 1 second order Variables Figure 4 Exploratory SPWB model with 1 Variable Figure 5 Exploratory SPWB model with 5 Variables Figure 6 Exploratory SPWB model with 5first order Variables and 1 second order variable. Figure 7 Exploratory SDS model with 1 Variable Figure 8 Exploratory SDS model with 10 Variables Figure 9 Exploratory SDS model with 10 first order Variables and 1 second order Variable Figure 10 Theoretical model of adult development and well-being for midlife never married singles Figure 11 Exploratory SWB model with 3 Factors Figure 12 Exploratory SWB model with 3 first order factors and 1 second order factor Figure 13 Singles’ Well-Being Model 1 Figure 14 Singles’ Well-Being Model 2 Figure 15 Singles’ Well-Being Model 3 Figure 16 Singles’ Well-Being Model 4 Figure 17 Singles’ Well-Being Model 5 Figure 18 Singles’ Well-Being Model 6 Figure 19 Singles’ Well-Being Model 7 Figure 20 Singles’ Well-Being Model 8 Figure 21 Singles’ Well-Being Model 9 Figure 22 Singles’ Well-Being Model 10 Figure 23 Singles’ Well-Being Model 11 Figure 24 Singles’ Well-Being Model 12 Figure 25 Singles’ Well-Being Model 13 Figure 26 Singles’ Well-Being Model 14 Figure 27 Singles’ Well-Being Model 15 Figure 28 Singles’ Well-Being Model 16 Figure 29 Singles’ Well-Being Model 17 Figure 30 Singles’ Well-Being Model 18 Figure 31 Singles’ Well-Being Model 19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this dissertation was made possible with the continued support and encouragement of several individuals. I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to my co-directors, Karen Maitland Schilling and Sally Lloyd, for their consistent dedication to this study and their thoughtful suggestions and revisions. Their expertise, knowledge, insight, and patience helped to both challenge and support me in every step of the journey through this project. I would like to offer thanks to my committee members: to Rose Marie Ward for her patient assistance with the statistics work in this project, and to Carl Paternite for his insightful contributions from a reader’s perspective. I’d like to thank Zachary Birchmeier for his assistance in teaching me about internet research and for his help in creating the online survey that was used to collect the data in this project. I wish to share my sincere appreciation for the singles who participated in this study, who offered their time and shared their life experiences to add to our understanding of singles’ lived experiences and to help develop a picture of meaningful and fulfilling single life. Finally, I’d like to express my deepest gratitude to my family and friends who supported me through this process. In particular, I want to thank my parents, Natalie and Ronald Donn, for their continued encouragement, understanding, and support for my dreams and goals. I want to thank my Bubie and Zada, Ruth and Arnold Orleans, for their unending love and commitment to my education, and for teaching me to seek knowledge in all areas of life. And to someone who joined my life in this midst of this project, my fiancé, Michael Goodman, I thank for his emotional support through the final parts of this project, and for his commitment to travel with me as we embark on the next phase of life together.

Adult Development and Well-Being of Mid-Life Never Married Singles This dissertation examines the factors that contribute to subjective well-being for midlife never-married singles. The dissertation is organized as follows: in chapter one I will review the relevant literature on singlehood and outline the goals of the study. I will also discuss traditional and more contemporary models of adult development and their strengths and limitations in studying never-married singles. I will review the research on marital status and well-being, and finally pose the guiding questions for this study. In chapter two I will describe the focus groups and interviews conducted with never-married singles, the themes that arose from these interviews, and the meaning of these results. In chapter three I will outline the process of developing three measures used in this study. I will discuss item development, reliability and validity of the measures, how the measures may be used in research on singles, and future directions in research using these measures. In chapter four I will report the findings on what contributes to singles’ subjective-well being as well as what these findings mean for our understanding of singles’ experiences. I will talk about the strengths and limitations of this study, and will pose suggestions for future research. Finally, at the conclusion in chapter five, I will draw practical implications for singles and therapists who work with them. Chapter 1: Introduction While never married singles remain on the edges of the adult population, eclipsed by the married and divorced, singles are a growing population in the US. In fact, between 1970 and 1996, the number of unmarried adults in the US doubled from 38 million to 77 million (Saluter & Lugaila, 1996). This translates to nearly a quarter of the adult population (23%) constituting the “never married” group (Saluter & Lugaila, 1996). Part of the reason for this change in proportions of married to never-married is the increasing tendency to postpone marriage. Between 1970 and 2000, the median age at first marriage for women increased by 4.3 years, to 25.1 years and increased among men by 3.6 years, to 26.8 years (Fields & Casper, 2001). There are more and more single persons in their late twenties and thirties who face changes in the timing of life stages, but lack a normative discourse about how those years are to be spent. Numbers of singles are also rising beyond this young adult period. The percentage of never married persons age 35 to 44 tripled from 5.9% in 1970 to 15.5% in 2000 (Fields & Casper, 2001). This breaks down evenly for men and women, with percent of single women ages 35 to 44 rising from 5.2% to 13.0% and percent of single men in this age range increasing

1 from 6.7% to 18.0% (Fields & Casper, 2001). Thus, singlehood is increasingly becoming a life issue for many in this era. DePaulo and Morris (2005) argue that in spite of growing numbers of singles, the American mindset is ruled by the Ideology of Marriage and Family, a paradigm in which marriage and children in a nuclear family is the only corrent, and even available, life path. Despite the significant population of never married singles, there is a paucity of literature that covers satisfying and successful single life across the life span, particularly when compared to the vast literature on dating and marriage. In the literature that exists concerning never married singles, the primary purpose appears to be reinforcement of singles’ position on the margins, attempting to explain to readers why people are single, with the assumption that the single life is a deficient life; singles are living without a basic need being met. In the published literature, this deficit seems localized in women’s experiences. Titles such as Woman Alone (Scott & Smith, 1971), Never Married Women (Simon, 1987), and Women Who May Never Marry (Wolfe, 1993) emphasize this view of single women missing out on an important element in life. Other titles, such as This Wasn't Supposed to Happen (Bakos, 1985) and Why Isn’t My Daughter Married (Curtis, 1988) explicitly speak to the idea that unmarried women are deficient. Granted, more recently there have been some books that acknowledge the increasing rate of singlehood and the opportunities and rewards of single life: Our Lives for Ourselves: Women Who Have Never Married (Peterson, 1981), Living Alone and Liking It (Shahan, 1981), Flying Solo: Single Women in Midlife (Anderson, Stewart, & Dimidjian, 1994), and most recently Sassy, Single and Satisfied: Secrets to Loving the Life You're Living (Hammond, 2003) . Finally, another set of literature documents singles’ experiences (e.g., Allen, 1989; Gordon, 1994; Reilly, 1996). In contrast to this literature geared toward single women, the literature for men seems to ignore the issue of coping with being single or constructing a positive single life, and instead consists almost exclusively of dating guides such as Make Every Girl Want You (Fate & Reil, 2002) and How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35 (Steele & Bellevue, 1995). One exception is Adventures in Singlehood: A Road Map for Singles (Shellenberger & Ross, 1996), which is not specifically written for men, but does have a male author. There appear to be no books for men on how to live a satisfying life as a single, while some books for women present models for meaningful, happy lives as single women. Thus, the climate for single men appears

2 even less open than for single women, as women have a broader range of resources for literature on single life. The growing ranks of never married singles across the life span are left without normative guidelines for adult development and satisfying life progress, since many of the markers of adulthood and progress through adulthood are rooted in events such as marriage, having children, and children’s maturational events. It gets more confusing when disentangling the issues of marriage and children, as some people who marry do not have children, and some singles do have children. However, most singles do not have children and thus diverge from the expected adulthood tasks. Singles are not without some societal expectations, though, most commonly in the form of assumptions and stereotypes. Stereotypes of singles run from one extreme of the desperate, depressed spinster or unmanly bachelor to the other extreme of the “swinging single” carefree and promiscuous. In reality, however, single lives are likely as varied as other lives, with differing degrees of health and happiness, linked to a variety of life histories and reasons for being single. Even as the ranks of singles have grown, we have little understanding of the variability of singles’ life experiences. Past research has either focused on small subsets of the single population, such as Chinese- and Japanese- Americans (Ferguson, 2000), elderly women (Allen, 1989; O’Brien, 1991), or women in academic professions (Fong & Amatea, 1992, Lewis & Borders, 1995). Other studies have grouped always singles with divorced and widowed persons (Austrom & Hanel, 1985, Lewis & Borders, 1995), ignoring distinctions of loss, stress, and having realized the marital state at some point in time, thus proving one’s “acceptability” in society. Other studies have looked closely at the experiences of a small group of participants, using interview techniques that offer a view into individual’s experiences, but are thus limited in scope (Chasteen, 1994, Kaslow, 1992, Lewis & Moon, 1997, Spurlock, 1990). The purpose of this study was to examine how some singles escape these stereotypes, with the goal of generating a more accurate representation of the variability of the experience of midlife singlehood. The following questions guided this inquiry: How do singles construct/achieve satisfying lives? How do characteristics of singles and their interaction with their environments predict/contribute to subjective well-being for midlife never married singles? To answer these questions, this study examined the relationships of developmental trajectories

3 and transitions, social elements, and demographic factors (e.g. education, income) to subjective well-being for never married singles at midlife. Models of Adult Development In traditional developmental theory, formation of intimate relationships and marriage are typically core components of stages marking the transition to adulthood. For example, Erikson’s (1950) stages in young and middle adulthood focus on developing intimate relationships and being creative, through having children or creating other products, knowledge or wisdom to pass down to future generations. The implicit focus on committed romantic relationships and childrearing leaves little room for development in those who do not form such relationships at the given time. More recently, theorists have produced developmental models with pathways more applicable to singles. In contrast to linear models of development proposed in traditional theories (e.g., Erikson, Piaget), several theorists have developed models that use a different trajectory of development. Historically, development has been conceptualized as a series of stages through which one progresses over time. This linear process has often implied that one stage is “resolved” or completed before advancing to the next stage. Erikson’s developmental model includes a sense that issues from one stage may reappear in later stages, but specific issues are technically relegated to certain ages. Linear models have garnered some criticism for this lockstep process with one possible route through development. A different kind of developmental model proposed more recently (e.g. Kegan, 1982; Levinson, 1978, 1996) is one based on a trajectory intended to capture both the stages themselves and the tensions and transitions between them. This type of model is particularly applicable for singles because it allows for renegotiation of identity and self-concept within the context of deviating from expected pathways. Single status is not a one-time event, but a life issue that is likely reexamined at various points in life. Erikson’s traditional model does include the idea that incomplete developmental tasks are reexamined throughout the lifespan, but his model does not pay as much attention to the multiple ways people can negotiate developmental progress.

Kegan’s model Kegan proposed what he terms a “constructive-developmental model,” which accounts for the evolution of meaning making. He claims that prior models of development are biased toward differentiation or separation, neglecting the element of integration. His theory sees growth as a process of interaction between person and environment, as opposed to a process purely within an individual. He proposes six stages, or periods of “evolutionary truce,” through which an individual proceeds as he/she experiences shifts in what is taken as self and what is taken as other. For example, the infant begins at stage 0 (Incorporative) and learns to differentiate himself from that which is external to himself, upon reaching stage 1 (Impulsive), wherein impulses and perceptions become the self-subject. He deems this process a series of “successive triumphs of ‘relationship to’ rather than ‘embededness in’” (p. 77). Within this process of differentiation from parts of self and integration of new parts of self one finds the pulls toward separation versus pulls toward connection and inclusion, “the two greatest yearnings in human experience” (Kegan, 1982, p. 107). Kegan sees the relationship between these yearnings as a lifelong tension that is resolved at one stage in favor of autonomy/separation and at the next in favor of connectedness. He thus presents his developmental model in the form of a helix or spiral, with stages 1, 3, and 5 favoring inclusion on the right side of the spiral and stages 2 and 4 favoring inclusiveness on the left side of the spiral. Over the course of one’s life, the balance between desire for connectedness and autonomy is temporary and over time vacillates from one to the other. Kegan proposes a time line for the first stages that cover infancy through adolescence, but specifies no distinct time span for the later stages. Kegan’s (1982) model has two advantages for use with singles. The first is related to the shape of the model itself, and is an element we will return to when examining other developmental models. The spiral shows a different kind of progression in life than the one commonly thought of, namely directly forward and up. Instead, it allows for exploration and variation of life path. Also, this model has an inclusive view of relationships between self and others/world, which does not specify the need for a committed romantic relationship. Kegan’s model has two implications for the study of life satisfaction of mid-life singles. First, one’s relative location within the various stages may be at least as important as the specific stage one is in or nearest to. A person in transition between one stage and the next is likely to

5 experience greater levels of distress, confusion, and concerns about identity and role. Kegan claims that the transition between stages is a period of distress, as one goes through a period of “qualitative decentration - which from the point of view of the developing organism amounts to the loss of its very organization” (p. 82). During these times, it is likely that a marginalized identity such as singlehood would have a greater impact on one’s self-concept. Thus, people in transition between stages would potentially have lower levels of life satisfaction and higher levels of distress. The other implication of this model lies in the movement between desire for connectedness and desire for separation. Those in stage 4 (Institutional), which favors separateness, may be more satisfied with their lives as single persons than those in stages 3 (Interpersonal) in particular and secondarily than those in stage 5 (Interindividual), which favor connectedness.

Levinson’s model Levinson (1978) proposed a “life cycle” model consisting of a “journey from birth to old age [that] follows an underlying, universal pattern” which may be affected by life experiences, but proceeds along a fixed sequence (p. 6). Levinson conducted extensive life interviews of forty men between the ages of 35 and 45, in four different occupations (novelists, hourly workers, executives, and academic biologists). He discovered a series of four age-linked eras or “seasons” within the life cycle, distinct from but connected to those preceding and following: Childhood and Adolescence from ages 0-22; Early Adulthood from 17-45; Middle Adulthood 40-65; and Late Adulthood from age 60 on. Between each of the discreet eras is a time of transition, lasting four to five years. Each of these eras is marked by a different “character of living” (p. 18); instead of direct marks of change in the biological, psychological, or social realm to mark development, Levinson found that the overall “life structure,” made up of a combination of these areas, shows distinct changes between eras. By life structure, Levinson means “the underlying pattern or design of a person’s life at a given time” (p. 41). The life structure is viewed from several different perspectives, reflecting a man’s interrelations between self and world: the sociocultural world in which the man lives, and its meaning and consequences on his life; which of a person’s aspects of self are lived out or inhibited; and the nature of the man’s participation in the world, played out in transactions between self and world. These different perspectives can be seen in a man’s

6 life through the choices he makes and how he deals with the consequences of his choices. Each major choice is a component of the life structure, which “becomes a vehicle for living out certain aspects of the self and engaging in certain modes of participation in the world” (p. 44). Levinson found that the most common central components of a man’s life are his occupation and marriage- family. These are the location of his primary avenues of relationship, power and authority, wisdom, and means of pursuing life goals. The seasons comprise a man’s life structure, which “evolves through a relatively orderly sequence through the adult years” (p. 49). Stable periods, during which a man’s task is to build a life structure, alternate with transitional periods, which are times to “question and reappraise the existing structure, to explore various possibilities for change in the self and world, and to move toward commitment to the crucial choices that form the basis for a new life structure in the ensuing stable period” (p. 49). The nature of these periods and the specific developmental tasks required varies by season, such that each era has its own set of growth areas and life issues. Periods are defined in terms of their developmental tasks, and not in terms of concrete events such as marriage or retirement. The life structure can be assessed for “satisfactoriness” by judging its viability in society and its suitability for the self: how well it works in the world and how well it allows various aspects of self to be expressed and lived out. No structure is ever perfect, and the seasons reflect changes to the life structure as its utility at one time declines and its flaws become less tolerable. When this happens, it sparks a transition period, often experienced as a period of crisis. The life cycle sees a man through alternating periods of comfort and inner conflict. While the current study focuses on midlife, or the Middle Adulthood years in Levinson’s model, the prior phases will also be discussed, as the roots of midlife and well-being at midlife lie in the earlier eras. Early Adulthood consists of two primary phases, the Novice Phase and Settling Down. The Novice Phase, lasting roughly from age 17 to 35, consists of the process of emerging into adulthood from adolescence. This era begins with the Early Adult Transition (ages 17-22), which involves the tasks of leaving the pre-adult world and initiating early adulthood. Leaving adolescence and the pre-adult world means beginning to separate from one’s family of origin, often accomplished via military service or college. To initiate early adulthood, a young man must explore the world’s possibilities, imagine himself a participant in it, and test some early choices before settling on a life structure. Upon Entering the Adult World (ages 22-

28), one engages in the tasks of exploration and creating a stable structure, which will serve as the initial adult life structure. This first time around, the life structure cannot be ideally satisfying, for “the tasks in this period are in their nature antithetical, and we are too young, inexperienced and torn regarding our own wishes to be able to resolve the contradictions” (p. 82). Following this first set of choices comes the Age 30 Transition (ages 28-33), which offers a second chance for people to create a more satisfying life structure during early adulthood. This transition may be a smooth process of change for some, but a time of painful transition or crisis for others. Levinson describes four key tasks for the novice phase. The young man must begin to gain a sense of his life Dream, envisioning how he wishes his life to unfold, and begin to take steps to realize that Dream. He must find key adults who can help make this Dream a reality. The mentor, whose role as a transitional figure is to support and facilitate the fruition of the Dream, is one of these important figures. The “special woman,” often found or hoped for in a wife, also plays an important role in helping a man achieve his life goals. The special woman “helps him to shape and live out the Dream: she shares it, believes in him as a hero, gives it her blessing, joins him on the journey and creates a ‘boundary space’ within which his aspirations can be imagined and his hopes nourished” (p. 109). In Levinson’s study, all but one of the participants married during the novice phase. If a man is still single in his late 20s, the question of marriage becomes more urgent, as he in encouraged or pressed to marry by family, peers, occupational network, and voices within himself. The remaining task during this phase is to form an occupation, a task that often extends over the entire novice phase. These four tasks provide the young adult with the pieces of his preliminary life structure for early adulthood. The second part of Early Adulthood consists of the Settling Down period (ages 33-40), which includes an early and a late phase. The tasks during this time are to establish his niche in society and to work at advancement, both of which contribute to joining the tribe as a full- fledged adult. During the early period, a man feels a need for a more stable, balanced life in which marriage-family takes a primary place. This need for stability also means he is more likely to deal with problems by making accommodations within the existing structure as opposed to making major structural changes. The late period in settling down consists of fully Becoming One’s Own Man, which involves advancing on his chosen ladder, becoming a senior member of his enterprise, speaking more clearly with his own voice, having greater authority, and becoming

8 less dependent on other individuals and institutions in his life (p. 144). Levinson describes five paths through the settling down period that vary by success/failure at family and career and stability. The end of settling down concludes the early adult era. Following Early Adulthood is Middle Adulthood, which lasts from about age 40 to 60 and begins with the Mid-Life Transition, from 40-45 years of age. This transition is marked by the “culmination of his youthful strivings,” at which time the individual faces a reorganization of his life, which includes decisions about which aspects of self have been neglected and now need to take a higher priority. While this is usually instigated by an external event, the event has its powerful impact because of its timing in the life cycle that impels an individual to reconsider and reflect on his life. A man must modify the Dream, realizing that its fulfillment is not the equivalent of a successful, meaningful life and must also prepare to become a mentor to the next generation. During cross-era transitions, the process of individuation becomes particularly important. Through individuation, the person renegotiates the relationship between himself and the world, forming stronger boundaries and also gaining confidence to have more intense attachments in the world. Individuation also involves reintegrating at a different level four polarities with which people deal throughout life: Young/Old, Destruction/Creation, Masculine/Feminine, and Attachment/Separateness. Through the transition period, people must face these issues and develop a balance between the poles. People make their way through this period in a variety of ways, along one of five paths similar to those of the settling down period. Middle adulthood is less fully articulated in Levinson’s model, since the era begins at age 45, which was the upper limit of his participants’ ages, though he did follow some men further into this period. He describes Middle Adulthood much like Early Adulthood, with the same need to “make crucial choices, give these choices meaning and commitment, and build a life structure around them” (p. 278). However, these choices are now made in the context of having years of experience, learning from successes or mistakes, and being able to reaffirm and enhance earlier choices or make major changes to an unsatisfying life structure. Levinson notes that the peak of physical and mental functioning has passed, and men must develop a framework that takes new limitations into account, while deepening relationships and continuing to fulfill life goals. Because of the nature of Levinson’s questions and sample, he did not attempt to describe the period after 60 years of age, which he calls Late Adulthood.

Levinson (1996) also conducted a study of women’s adult development that utilized the model he developed for men and included interviews of fifteen homemakers and thirty career women, fifteen in academic careers and fifteen with corporate-financial careers. He found that women’s lives progress through the same seasons as men’s lives, but found obstacles and issues around gender that do not play the same role in men’s lives. His key concept for these issues revolves around gender splitting, “a sharp division between feminine and masculine that permeates every aspect of human life” that appears most prominently in the division between the domestic sphere and the public occupational sphere (p. 6). In this paradigm, the woman’s role is to become wife and mother, to manage the household and have little investment in the outside world. While this was the standard expectation, Levinson found that even women who found some contentment with this life “paid a considerable price in restriction of self-development” (p. 415). His study showed clearly the myriad ways that women’s development is stymied by societal images and beliefs about femininity and womanhood. While men’s stories center on fulfilling a Dream and developing various aspects of self, women’s stories convey a very different life experience. Whether homemaker or career woman, all of the women in Levinson’s (1996) study experienced a struggle between the internal Traditional Homemaker Figure, who sought marriage and family and was not interested in high occupational achievement, and the Anti-Traditional figure, who wanted to develop her own independence and qualities traditionally viewed as male, such as initiative and responsibility. A minority of women was able to integrate these into a “combined Dream of the Successful Career Woman in a Neo-Traditional Marriage Enterprise,” though most found career and family to be antithetical (p. 313). Many of the business career women stumbled into careers, as they found little in the way of mentorship or even real interest in helping them discover their true potential and desires. Levinson notes that a woman “cannot afford the luxury of a Dream if she is totally occupied with … conformity to a life scenario that leaves no room for personal choice” (p. 239). Many of these women had just such an experience, pulled between compliance with societal and familial expectations, and the sense of living out a fulfilling life of their own choosing. Whether for homemaker or career woman, marriage was nearly a universal goal. Most of the homemakers married soon after completing their education, then had a first child within a year of marriage, as it appeared that “matrimony and motherhood were inexorably linked in the natural order of things” (p. 86). It was a common experience to feel that marriage was

10 inevitable and, for the most part, desirable, but there was little conception of alternative life pathways. One participant explained, “I have no image of a successful single woman who happily made career the center of her life. My image was that she had to be cold-hearted, she had to be grasping, she had to be cruel, she had to be embittered, frustrated, wishing she had done anything just to be sitting by the fireside knitting in the evening with children” (p. 54). Some career women knew they did not want a Traditional Marriage Enterprise, but found little in the way of images, role models, and concrete options that might help them realize alternatives. It took progress through several eras to help them make progress in finding their own path. While Levinson’s picture of a woman’s life differs in many ways from his picture of a man’s life, he found the general pattern of changes to women’s life structure comparable to men’s. Levinson’s (1978) model of life seasons has some strength in its articulation of common stages and means of transitioning between stages. However, it has numerous limitations as well, particularly for the study of never married singles. Levinson’s sample of men were born between 1923 and 1934, so all experienced the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, and the social changes of the 1960s. While there was some variation in the ages at which participants experienced these events, for the most part they experienced the world at a particular point in history that differs significantly from the current historical time of the early 2000s. Most of Levinson’s male participants would have reached their 20s near the end of World War II, the time of an “unprecedented marriage boom” when age at first marriage was the lowest it has been in the US since 1850 (Fitch & Ruggles, 2000, p. 65). The 1950s marked a distinct era of the American family, one in which the family was seen as the source of fulfillment for all personal needs, the center of emotional life apart from extended family and community (Coontz, 1992). It was also an era of conforming to an ideal, a standard broadcast on television that served as a model for all American families. This time was marked by couples marrying younger, moving to the suburbs, having children earlier and closer together, and completing their families by their late 20s (Coontz). Levinson’s age-linked eras are rooted directly in this period distinct from any other time in American history. The transition to mid-life at age 40 is based on the idea that “if a man starts a family in his twenties, his offspring are in or near adolescence as he passes 40…. The nest is emptying and the nuclear family is dividing into separate households” (p. 23). Thus, as greater variety of life pathways and timing of life events are available in current society, it is likely that Levinson’s stages will not be as firmly rooted in age as he found in the 1970s.

Levinson (1978) also assumes the primacy of marriage as a life task. He locates job and marriage-family as the most essential components of men’s lives, asserting “a man usually wants to marry and to make his family a central component in his life structure” (p. 45). All of the forty participants in his study were currently married, divorced, or remarried. Thus, he included no model for life development of singles, as marriage was seen as the only viable life pathway. While several of Levinson’s women participants remained single into Middle Adulthood, the primary structure of women’s lives at the time of the study in the early 1980’s was still centered on marriage and family. Career women were just beginning to grow in numbers and prominence, and many higher-level jobs were just beginning to be within reach for women, which in turn has had an impact on choices about marriage and family. It is debatable whether progress over the last thirty years has made these struggles for women and for singles less poignant. This study examined the utility of Levinson’s age-linked model for mid-life singles by looking for evidence of his eras and cross-era transitions in singles’ life stories. One of the aspects of Levinson’s (1978) model most applicable to this project is the idea of transition or crisis. These transitions seem to occur approximately every ten years, with the first around age twenty. During these times of transition, an individual confronts the need to question the nature of his world and his place in it; “to modify or terminate existing relationships with important persons, groups, and institutions; to reappraise and modify the self formed in it” (p. 56). Individuals may make new choices or reaffirm old ones in these times of transition. People experience these periods at varying levels of discomfort, from smooth transitions to developmental crises, when new options appear unavailable. The Mid-Life Transition is a more significant time of evaluation, when some men struggle with questions about the “meaning, value and direction of their lives” (60). Each time of transition marks a phase of evaluating one’s life thus far and either confirming one’s previous choices or making new ones. Transitions play a critical role in moving through life. Baxter-Magolda’s and Arnett’s Models of Emerging Adulthood Marcia Baxter Magolda (1999) has also proposed a model of adult development that includes periods of identity consolidation and reexamination. She conducted a longitudinal study of college student and adult development, based on yearly interviews with 39 participants over a 12-year span. In their early 20s, participants had primarily externally defined identities, in which they “[adopted] externally derived plans for success as [their] own,” and reacted to their

12 environments more than they made conscious decisions about their own plans (633). In the course of their 20s, many people found either that happiness and satisfaction did not necessarily follow in taking the paths others expected them to, or found that they did not want to take the expected path. By their late 20’s, many people had found an inner voice and internally defined sense of self that mediated the external influences. Sometimes the decisions that derived from this internal voice conflicted with the paths young adults had started out on, which caused some degree of turmoil in their lives, while other times their paths were compatible with the newly developing internally derived identity. By age 30, most of the study’s participants had reached a state of “internally driven identity” (640). Baxter Magolda notes that this transition is not one of individuation to a separate self, but rather is “a story of the self emerging from being consumed by others to join others in authentic relationships” (641). These findings support the first half of Levinson’s (1978) Early Adulthood, from the Early Adult Transition from ages 17-22, Entering the Adult World during ages 22-28, and the Age 30 Transition from age 28-33. Arnett’s (2000) study provides evidence that marriage and other demographic changes do not necessarily indicate a transition to adulthood. He argues for viewing emerging adulthood (age 18-25) as a distinct life stage, marked by heterogeneity of demographic characteristics and identity exploration, particularly in the areas of love, work, and worldview. Emerging adulthood is definitively distinct from adolescence (age 10-18) and young adulthood (25-30s). People in their teens and twenties most often have a subjective sense of being adult in some respects and not in others. Demographic characteristics (e.g., finishing school, settling into a career, marrying) are at the bottom of the list of achievements people believe necessary for attaining adult status. Instead, individualistic qualities of character, such as accepting responsibility for one’s self and making independent decisions, in addition to becoming financially independent are criteria which people believe mark adulthood. Overall, these add up to becoming a self- sufficient person. The existence of emerging adulthood as a life stage may vary by country, culture, and SES depending on the availability of a period for independent role exploration. As the world becomes increasing industrialized, demanding more educated workers, and as life span increases, emerging adulthood will likely become more prevalent worldwide. The Theories in Conversation- How well do they work together? The theories described above trace their roots to several different core schools of thought. These “schools” differ on many points, including beliefs about the nature of human

13 development, its endpoint, and the process of change. There are also points at which the theories converge. Because of the different assumptions and beliefs upon which the theories are based, and the different fields of study from which they grew, they have not been in good conversation with each other, nor do they integrate well into a single model. In this section, I will trace the roots of the theories, highlight their commonalities and differences, and also discuss newer developments in the adult development literature. Socio-emotional development Levinson’s theory of development finds its roots in the socio-emotional developmental theories of psychoanalysis and ego identity development. The earliest of these roots was Freud’s theory of psychosexual development, which viewed development as a process of resolving a series of psychosexual stages, beginning in early infancy and extending into adolescence. If one successfully negotiates the related tasks, he/she becomes a genitally mature adult. Freud’s conception of development was focused on avoiding neurotic pathology as an adult more so than a picture of healthy development. Freud also concentrated on children’s emotional growth to the neglect of cognitive or physical growth, though the sequence, functions, and structures of the psychosexual stages were rooted in biological sources (Thomas, 2000; Colarusso & Nemiroff, 1981). While Freud’s theories have long been controversial, due in part to his view of children as sexual beings, he opened the door for researchers and clinicians to examine psychological development. Erikson took the next step to expand on Freud’s theory, adding a sociocultural context for development and the idea that development continues into adulthood, beyond Freud’s stage of genital maturity. Erikson was thus the first to focus on psychological development throughout the life cycle (Colarusso & Nemiroff, 1981). In contrast to Freud’s emphasis on growth and cure of neurotic behavior, Erikson’s theory focused on the development of a healthy personality (Thomas, 2000). Erikson’s theory of development specifies that the interaction of the individual with the social environment produces a series of eight major psychosocial crises that the person must work through (Thomas, 2000). Each task, or development crisis, is associated with a specific stage, corresponding with a chronological age period by way of biological maturation and social interaction. Erikson proposed that development proceeds according to an epigenetic principle, wherein anything that grows has an internal, preset construction plan, as in fetal development, and each aspect of development has a critical time of ascendancy and

14 corresponding vulnerability to distortion (Thomas, 2000; Colarusso & Nemiroff, 1981). This plan is the backdrop of Erikson’s eight stages, where movement from one stage to another is prompted largely by cultural expectations tied to chronological age rather than on the readiness of the person to deal with each successive challenge (Taylor, 1999). In Erikson’s model, a person does not stay at one stage until he has resolved it, rather, “each person is pushed through this sequence of dilemmas by biological maturation, by social pressures, by the demands of the roles she takes on” (Bee, 1987, p. 62). Thus, there is the possibility for unsuccessful resolution of a stage, which leaves the individual with unresolved conflicts that are carried forward to next stage, making it more difficult to successfully resolve that stage (Bee, 1987). Erikson describes three stages relevant to middle adulthood: identity, intimacy, and generativity. Identity versus role confusion is the task Erikson assigns to ages 13-18. Identity development will be addressed in depth shortly. This task consists of developing one’s ideology and role as a sexual, productive and responsible adult and lays the foundation for the later tasks of intimacy and generativity (Kimmel, 1990). The task or crisis of intimacy versus isolation is associated with ages 19-25. This task involves developing a mutual relationship with another, fusing one’s identity with that of another without fear of losing one’s own identity (Bee, 1987). Intimacy involves investing in and making commitments to other people through intimate interactions, and does not necessarily mean monogamous sexual relationships (Salkind, 2004). Erikson describes generativity versus stagnation as the task of those ages 26-50. Generativity involves leaving one’s mark on the world in a way that extends beyond one’s own lifetime, through having and raising children or through occupational achievements (Kimmel, 1990). Another way of saying this is the people have a need to “pass the torch” or contribute to the next generation. In Erikson’s theory, people may resolve these crises with various amount of success, and the extent to which each stage is resolved in turn impacts the following stages. These three tasks then, play a role in the well-being of adults at midlife. Erikson’s theory includes contextual factors that influence development, but primarily focuses on the internal process and struggle through periods of crisis. For example, Erikson attended to the patterns of behavior that different cultures consider desirable and which children need to adopt or adapt to if they are to be given the approval of the group within which they grow up (Thomas, 2000). The balance of attention to internal and external factors would become a key dividing point in the literature on development through the current time.

In the 1960s, the field of development was dominated by Erikson’s theory; since that time, there has been a flowering of new ideas and theories with roots in Erikson’s model (Bee, 1987). Two important developments that grew out of Erikson’s theory are the study of life-span development and ego identity formation. As Levinson’s theory has already been described in detail, I will focus here the area of ego identity development. Ego identity development As an aspect of life-span development, the study of ego identity development has become a minor field in its own right. The study of ego identity originated with Erikson’s theory of development. He specified that the main task of adolescence is establishing one’s identity, with the crisis of identity versus role confusion. Identity, for Erikson, consisted of two main parts, an inner element, based on an individual’s recognition of his own unified sense of self and its continuity in time, and an outer-focused aspect, which involves recognition of and identification with the ideals of one’s culture (Thomas, 2000). Erikson’s theory of identity encompassed a broad range of theoretical perspectives, including ones involving a psychoanalytic viewpoint: identity as genetic, adaptive, structural, and dynamic (Bourne, 1978a). He also conceived of identity in ways that went beyond the psychoanalytic perspective, identity as subjective or experiential (sense of inner cohesiveness), as psychosocial reciprocity (social self-definition), and existential (identity as a way of being in the world) (Bourne, 1978a). While this offered a rich foundation for the study of identity, the complexity of Erikson’s concept of identity made it very difficult, if not impossible, to operationalize his theory in order to test it (Bourne, 1978a). Marcia (1966) took a crucial step forward in the study of ego identity by proposing a model and a measure for assessing ego identity. Marcia’s interpretation of the way an individual establishes identity involves a period of “crisis,” during which the individual experiments with alternative roles and ideals of the “good life,” after which he makes relatively enduring commitments which serve both to complete his self-definition and to provide him with a place in his community (Bourne, 1978a). Thus the criteria used to establish identity status consist of two variables, crisis, or exploration, and commitment. By combining different levels of exploration and commitment, Marcia proposed four possible identity statuses. Identity achievement indicates that an individual has experienced a period of crisis and decision-making during which he consciously explored alternatives and then committed to an identity involving occupation and ideology. The opposite of achievement is identity diffusion, which is marked by lack of

16 commitment, though the individual may or may not have engaged in exploration. Moratorium indicates an individual currently in crisis, testing possible alternatives, with the appearance of an active struggle to make commitments. Foreclosure refers to individuals who express that they have made commitments, not after a period of exploration, but through assimilation of parents’ or community standards, values, and ideology. Since its publication in 1966, Marcia’s model of identity status has dominated the study of identity formation, with researchers examining the range and limits of the model, domains and contexts of identity formation, and characteristics associated with the statuses. Within the area of identity formation, there has been a growing interest in identity-defining contents or domains (Kroger, 2000). Marcia (1966) originally applied these identity statuses to the domains of occupational choice, religion, and political ideology. Since then, other researchers have looked at identity across a broad range of ideological and interpersonal domains, including dating, sex roles and homosexuality, philosophical lifestyle, recreation, and family (Schwartz, 2001). Marcia’s model includes the idea that identity may develop at different rates in different domains, so that one may be in a different identity status according to the domain of interest. Studies have also investigated difference associated with each of the identity statuses with respect to a wide variety of cognitive, personality, and developmental variables, including family communication patterns, styles of intimacy, forms of peer interaction, and feasible interventions (Bourne, 1978a, Kroger, 2000). Researchers have also examined the long term stability of identity statuses. The research in this area, however, has been far from conclusive. Some researchers suggest that an individual’s identity status is not particularly stable over longer periods of time (e.g., Bourne, 1978a). A study looking at change in identity status over the course of four years of college found that more than 50% of the participants changed identity status (Waterman et al., 1974). Marcia (1976b) followed up a group of college students 10 years after their initial assessment and found that moratorium and achievement statuses were less stable than diffusion and foreclosure. Both studies suggest that the predictive capacity of the model is not very strong over a course of four to ten years. As Bourne (1978a) notes, however, we are missing a picture of the stability of the status over a span of one to three months. Waterman (1982) comes to a different conclusion, stating that “it appears that the adult years are a period of strengthening of identity but not a time when many new identity issues are raised or novel possibilities

17 considered” (p. 348-349). This belief, however, is based on only three studies, one retrospective, one cross sectional comparing fathers and sons, and one longitudinal with a 10-year follow up (Waterman, 1982). The nature of identity over time and across the life span merits further examination. I will return to the role of identity maintenance and the identity statuses in adulthood shortly, as it is a key part of the current study. Conceptualization of the identity statuses and the model as a whole has changed somewhat over almost four decades of research. In his original work, Marcia described the statuses along a continuum, based on their proximity to identity achievement, which he saw as the desired outcome. From that perspective, identity achievement and identity diffusion would be the extremes, with foreclosure and moratorium at intermediate points. With further exploration of the model, however, this teleological and unidirectional interpretation has been replaced by a more flexible view (Meeus, et al., 1999). While development may proceed via more or less variable pathways, there has been some empirical support for a “fundamental developmental hypothesis,” wherein identity develops progressively over the course of adolescence, particularly through a systematic increase in achievement and decrease in foreclosure and diffusion (Meeus, et al., 1999). Research that has considered the relationship between identity status and psychological well-being has found a sequence of identity statuses from low to high psychological well-being: moratorium, diffusion, foreclosure and achievement, with no significant difference between the last two (Meeus, et al., 1999). This suggests that foreclosure is not a problematic experience, and in the model itself, foreclosure is not viewed as unhealthy or negative, though identity status theorists and researchers have a value preference for the “examined life” in general (Waterman, 1988). Marcia’s model, while dominating the field, has both strengths and weaknesses. One of its major strengths is the amount of research it has generated, which is a defining feature of a good theory. Another strength is that it “strikes an optimal compromise between Erikson’s clinical idiographic form of inquiry and that prescribed by nomothetic, empirical science” (Bourne, 1978b, p. 382). However, there are methodological concerns about the literature as a whole, specifically on the validity and reliability of the instrument used to assess identity status, the over-reliance on college students as participants, and the lack of samples from other cultures (Lemme, 2002). Lemme also offered a conceptual critique, suggesting that a person could have made commitments in some but not all areas relevant to identity and would therefore be difficult

18 to accurately assign an identity status. Concerns have also been raised about the adequacy of the four-category typology to fully account for identity in all cultures and in the complex forms that Erikson described (Cote & Levine, 2002). Additionally, according to Erikson, an adequate resolution of the identity stage, in the sense of successfully taking on adult roles and being recognized as an adult by others, is a normative phenomenon (Cote & Levine, 2002). However, in Marcia’s (1966) original research, participants were nearly evenly distributed across the four statuses and no further research has reported that most people end up in achievement or foreclosure. Thus, in Marcia’s model, resolution of the identity crisis does not appear to be the normative event as described in Erikson’s theory. It must be understood that Marcia’s model does not fully assess identity formation from Erikson’s perspective, and yet his model has so dominated the field that research has done little to explore other aspects of Erikson’s identity theory. In Erikson’s theory and in the literature on identity status, the underlying assumption is that identity formation occurs during adolescence, and should be completed by late adolescence or early adulthood. Marcia (1995) notes that adolescents are offered time to work on identity development, “neither in liberal nor traditional contexts are we especially tolerant and supportive of identity crises in adulthood” (p. 70). This may be so, but this does not mean that identity work does not continue to take place throughout the life span. The current study focuses on stability and change in one’s identity, particularly on the process of an individual’s construction of his/her own identity. In keeping with Levinson and Jung, I suggest that identity is not constructed once and for all during late adolescence/young adulthood, but rather that people experience alternating periods of stability and transitions between these periods, changing and altering their identity to fit the needs of their current life situations. This idea fits well with the life course view of development, which focuses on transitions and turning points, as well as changes in the individual’s experience in relation to chronological and historical time. The idea of identity work in adulthood is actually not new, and yet the empirical research virtually ignores this area. With further investigation into his model, Marcia (1976b) came to see that the identity status model might be useful for cross-sectional research, but may not adequately consider that “the demands for decision making and new commitments throughout life require the continuous alternation of periods of questioning and reconsolidation of personal

19 identity” (Bourne, 1978a, p. 246). Bourne (1978b) suggested that “identity” cannot be viewed as a developmental end-point; rather, processes mediating identity construction continue beyond adolescence and throughout adulthood as the individual responds to crises in his life situation. Marcia (1995) himself proposed that in societies where individual identity construction occurs, “the identity formed at late adolescence is only the first identity; and it can be expected to change as successive life cycle issues make their claims for resolution” (p. 70). Adults must live with the consequences of the identities they form as adolescents (Waterman & Archer, 1990). Adults may enter an identity crisis when they can no longer assimilate new life experiences or when they find that their previous identity choices have not worked out well (Marcia, 1995, Waterman & Archer). Midlife identity crises may be primarily emotional as a result of disillusionment, or may involve efforts to make new, potentially more rewarding identity choices (Waterman & Archer, 1990). One study on divorced adults supported the idea that specific life circumstances can trigger identity reevaluations (Archer, 1985b). While a number of people have written about the need for research on identity in adulthood, few have begun to engage in this work. Several researchers have offered specific suggestions for studying the role of identity in adulthood. Waterman and Archer (1990) propose that the sophistication with which the dimensions of exploration and commitment are enacted increases with age and thus the standards used to determine the presence or absence of dimensions must become increasingly more stringent in order to reflect greater amounts of life experience. Bourne (1987b) suggests the investigation of “crisis periods” normatively associated with adulthood and aging, such as menopause, children leaving home, retirement (Bourne, 1978b). Kroger (2000), reflecting on the study of identity in the new millennium, poses numerous questions for research on adult identity construction, such as, “When a vast array of lifestyle possibilities are currently sanctioned for many midlife adults living in western, technologically advanced nations, how, why, and by whom are the main psychosocial pillars of one’s identity re-evaluated?” (p. 147). She suggests that “we are now entering a new millennium, where the social conditions of choice, giving rise to the need for identity-defining decisions among adolescents and young adults, also increasingly give rise to identity concerns among those in their middle and later adulthood years (Kroger, 2000, p. 146). Thus the current study examining the process of identity construction for single adults is particularly timely. Moral-epistemological development

Though they share some similarities with Erikson and Levinson, Kegan’s and Baxter- Magolda’s theories arose not from the social-emotional literature, but from the moral- epistemological tradition of Piaget and Kohlberg. Piaget’s theory centered on cognitive development, how a person understands the world around him/her, in other words, how he goes about “constructing reality” (Kastenbaum, 1993). Several basic factors are involved in Piaget’s theory of development: heredity, physical experience with the world, and social experience with others in ones culture. For Piaget, the child is inherently an active being, curious to interact with and learn from the world. The child thus begins to develop a way of understanding the world, based on the limited sensory and cognitive capacity of an infant. As the child confronts things in the world that do not fit into his current understanding of the world, he has two choices- he can either assimilate the new information, by matching the perceived features of the new event to his existing structure, or he can make accommodations to his structure in ways that account for the new information, leading to a qualitative change in his way of understanding the world. It is this process of disequilibration, leading to qualitative changes in ways of thinking about the world, and thus re-establishing equilibrium, that is the foundation of Piaget’s theory of development. For Piaget, continuous growth may occur on a daily basis, with no major leaps forward from one day to the next, but breaks in the process are evident when viewing a span of years (Thomas, 2000). In Piaget’s theory then, there are alternating times of change and stability that constitute developmental stages. Piaget proposed a model that included four primary stages, the last of which he believed was reached by around age 12 (Salkind, 2004). In addition to alternating between stability and change, Piaget also believed his stages to be universal, invariant in sequence, transforming and irreversible, gradually evolved, and ultimately in equilibrium (Thomas, 2000). Piaget’s theory attempts to cover the whole of cognitive development in one model, while other theorists, such as Kohlberg, focused more on one aspect, or content area, of cognitive development. For further discussion of Piaget’s theory, see Flavell, 1963; Piaget, 1950, 1970; Tudge & Winterhoff, 1999; Zigler and Gilman, 1998. Kohlberg’s theory builds on that of Piaget, and looks more deeply into one aspect of cognitive development. His is a theory of moral development, focused on the judgmental basis a child uses for assessing moral behavior (Thomas, 2000). He posits a six-stage hierarchy, beginning with the gain pleasure/avoid pain or punishment principle, and ranging to universal ethical principles at the highest level, which few people ever achieve. Four factors determine

21 how high and how quickly a person will progress through the hierarchy of stages. The person’s level of logical reasoning puts limits on moral reasoning, so that moral development parallels cognitive development progress. The child’s desire or motivation for moral reasoning plays a minor role, and is influenced by a combination of genes and environment. The social roles a person takes on, and the form of justice in the social institutions with which child is familiar also affect the moral development process (Thomas, 2000). Thus, moral development depends on the amount and type of experiences a person has in situations that involve moral decisions. While culture plays a part in his theory, Kohlberg was not an ethical relativist; he believed that moral development does not depend on society’s dominant ideas of justice. This forms the basis for his proposition that his developmental stages are universal, integrated, and invariant (Thomas, 2000). See Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989 for more information on Kohlberg’s theory. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development and Piaget’s broader theory of cognitive development laid the foundation for the work of Kegan and Baxter-Magolda. As I have described Kegan’s and Baxter-Magolda’s theories in detail above, I will move to a comparison of the various theories. Comparing the theories and their underlying assumptions The social-emotional and moral-epistemological traditions share some aspects in common, but diverge on some key elements. These differences create challenges for those who would try to integrate the theories, as they have historically not been in good conversation. It is beyond the scope of this study to attempt an integration of these theories; however, I will here discuss the ways in which the theories are similar and dissimilar. An underlying assumption of the theories examined in this study (Levinson, Kegan, Baxter-Magolda) is that humans continue to develop throughout the life span (Brennan & Weick, 1981, Courtenay, 1994). Another significant similarity is that these theories all use a stage model as the way they look at change across the lifespan. Stage theories consist of hierarchically ordered series of systematic changes that result in a qualitatively different skill or underlying psychological structure (Bee, 1987, Courtenay, 1994). Each stage is built from elements of prior stages, so that competencies in one stage must be acquired before one can move on to the next stage (Brennan & Weick, 1981, Courtenay, 1994). The stages usually involve movement from simple to complex, rigid to flexible, and from narrow to comprehensive perspectives (Courtenay, 1994). These theories are based on the belief that human behavior is relatively universal and

22 biologically driven (Reeves, 1999). Additionally, some theories argue that stages are age-linked. For example, Levinson proposes that his stages are closely tied to certain age periods, while Kegan’s stages are not linked to age, though his earlier stages tend to occur at approximately the same periods in childhood and adolescence. The theories differ on ways people move through the stages, their belief in critical periods, and their emphasis on intrinsic and extrinsic variables. In Kegan’s model, the stages are seen as universal templates for development, but people may differ in the rate at which they move through the stages and the final level of development they reach (Lerner, 2002). For Erikson and Levinson, however, the stages are inherently associated with specific ages, so that one must face the developmental issues during the given time period. This also implies the presence of critical periods, such that if one does not develop what one should develop in a given stage, one will never have another chance for such development (Lerner 2002). In Levinson’s theory, people typically revisit issues from previous stages and are thus able to “correct” problematic issues, while for Erikson, issues that are not resolved in the appropriate stage tend to create problems through all the ensuing stages. All stage theorists look at the interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic variables, or nature and nurture, but the emphasis may differ across theories (Lerner, 2002). Erikson placed greater emphasis on the biological, intrinsic developmental plan of the individual, and took into account social context, while Kegan focused more on the role of social interaction as the means of development, with biological brain development as a necessary but not sufficient factor. Stage theories appeal to the desire for stability and predictability, but have also received much criticism as research in development has progressed (Reeves, 1999). Common problems across stage models include the lack of clear markers for the beginning and end of stages, vague descriptions of the highest stage, and lack of consideration of socio-historical context (Courtenay, 1994, Lemme, 2002). Lemme suggests that stage models offer a picture of “idealized normality,” such that deviations from the norm are interpreted as pathological. In theories such as Levinson’s and Erikson’s, an overemphasis on chronological age masks variations that characterize individual lives (Lemme, 2002). The goals of autonomy, separateness, and independence in Erikson’s model have been criticized by feminist and cross- cultural theorists. Some see stage models as more applicable to child and adolescent development, with less coherence and a more limited application in individual adult

23 development, as adult development is not initiated by biological maturational change (Settlage et al., 1988). A significant difference between the theories is the content area, or what part of human behavior the theory accounts for. Piaget and Kegan try to explain changes in the way that people understand the world as they physically mature and encounter new and more complex life experiences. Erikson and Levinson, on the other hand, focus more on the emotional and identity aspects of growth, wherein the person learns about interpersonal relationships and his/her chosen place in the world. For Erikson, the physical maturation pushes the person into new stages of development- these stages do not arrive through experience or readiness. For Levinson, it appears that the individual is embedded in his/her culture, and goes through stages associated with different periods of life in that culture. The differences in focus are one reason researchers have not made much progress in combining the theories. Some research has been done to examine the way select theories fit together. King, Kitchener, Wood, and Davison (1989) conducted a study to investigate claims about relationships among developmental domains. The domains they examined in particular included ego development, cognitive development and moral development. Past theorists have proposed various relationships: that moral development is one aspect of ego development (Loevinger, 1976); that ego development and moral development are related constructs, but one is not contained by the other (Kohlberg, 1973); and that moral judgment is a separate element of intellectual development and not simply the use of more complex cognitive structures for moral content (Rest, 1979). Prior studies had found that in general, moderate, positive correlations exist among measures of moral, ego, and intellectual development. King et al.’s study included participants who were age 16, 20 and 28 at the start of the study. They assessed intellectual development, moral judgment, and ego development at three time points across a five year span. Their findings suggested that intellectual development and moral development have characteristics in common, but that ego development appears to be unrelated in any systematic way to moral or intellectual development. Additionally, although development occurs simultaneously across developmental domains, development in moral judgment appears to occur independently of other types of development. Their results do not show a clear picture, but we begin to see the complexity of fitting together even theories that cover similar content areas.

The very nature or definition of development differs across theories. Theories vary by whether they see development more as “growth” or more as “change.” The idea of growth through development involves some goal or end point toward which the individual moves, and that end point is deemed “better” or more mature than what is seen at earlier stages (Bee, 1987). The theories of Erikson and Kohlberg embody this perspective. Change, however, assumes no such end point or goal of development, nor is it based on “improvement” over time (Bee, 1987). Levinson’s theory has more of this “change” perspective. Theories also vary on whether they see change or development as primarily an internal or primarily external process (Bee, 1987). Theories rooted in a psychological background see development as mostly internal, with foci on personality, coping, ego states, mental skills, and physical capacities (Bee, 1987). Theories with roots in sociological tradition look more toward external change processes, e.g., changes in roles and age-related changes in form of life strains (Bee, 1987). Levinson incorporates both of these views in his theory. Additionally, theories may differ in terms of the amount of choice available to people within the process of development. For example, in Levinson’s framework, individuals face a crisis period and make life choices that either offer more satisfactory options or lead to stagnation. In Kegan’s theory, however, there is no choice about development- through perspective-changing experiences, the individual comes to see the world in a different way, regardless of comfort with the old system or resistance to change. Theorists vary on the extent to which they see their model of development as a universal phenomenon as opposed to being tied to a particular population. Erikson pays little attention to ways that differences of culture, gender, socio-economic status, or individual uniqueness interact with general development processes (Kimmel, 1990). Erikson and Levinson suggest that all people change along the same sequence and at the same rates, while others (e.g., Vaillant) focus more on diversity of possible pathways through adult life (Bee, 1987). Gutmann (1969, 1974, 1977) set out to examine the universality of development. He studied five cultures from around the world and verified with both cross-sectional and longitudinal data a basic developmental sequence in the lives of men in all societies he studied (in Colarusso & Nemiroff, 1981). He described three main stages: active mastery, from ages 35-54; passive mastery, ages 54-64; and the final stage of magical mastery, from age 65 on. Culture may thus be a modifier of underlying developmental phases, where the stages provide psychological tendencies and culture determines what options are acceptable for expression of those tendencies (Colarusso & Nemiroff, 1981).

The developmental theories described above thus differ on a number of points, including the definition of development and the domain of focus, and yet these theories are also consistent in some underlying beliefs, such as development as a life-long process and involvement of both individual and socio-cultural factors. The above theories may also be grouped together as organismic theories, in contrast to mechanistic models. Mechanistic theories see humans as similar to machines, where output varies by input. Behaviorist, conditioning, and social learning theories see humans as responsive (as opposed to active) beings and human development as a result of what is done to people, instead of active choices individuals make (Smolak, 1993). The models above are also primarily individualistic models that focus on internal development, as opposed to more social models that see development as inherently tied to and part of a sociocultural context. I will spend some more time on these social models, as they are becoming more prevalent across social science disciplines. Life Course Theory In addition to the theories outlined above, another set of literature also adds to our understanding of singles’ lives. The socio-emotional and moral-epistemological theories were rooted mainly in the field of Psychology. While these theories were under construction, the field of Sociology was also turning its attention to adult development. The life course theory, which first appeared in the 1970s, is the main product of the sociological study of development (Lerner, 2002). Sociologists developed life course theory to address challenges to creating an integrated and dynamic view of the entire course of human life. In so doing, they created a theory that extends the developmental theoretical framework from child-focused to life span; depicts change in human lives across their ontogenies and across different historical events and eras; and integrates human lives with changing social contexts (Lerner, 2002). The life course draws on two main traditions in social science, one focusing on the ecological and “age norm” context surrounding the individual, the other focusing on the longitudinal trajectory connecting roles and events in a person’s life over time (Giele & Elder, 1998). While different theorists produced different forms of the theory, they come together and share enough components that life course theory holds together as a unified view of human development. The life course theory is a holistic one, focusing on people’s lives interacting with the world and other individuals in multiple dynamic contexts. There are four main components of the theory, each of which influences the individual’s life course and his/her performance in the

26 various roles that structure that course (Clausen, 1986, Giele & Elder, 1998). One’s location in time and place contains an individual’s cultural background, the history, social structure, and culture in which she lives (Giele & Elder, 1998). Linked lives, or social integration, comes from the interaction of individuals with societal institutions and social groups. Human agency, or individual goal orientation, embodied in the active pursuit of personal goals and the sense of self, also influences the course of one’s life. Finally, the timing of lives, made up of chronologically ordered events of an individual’s life that simultaneously combine personal, group, and historical markers, has a significant impact on the course of one’s life. Clausen (1986) summarizes: In the study of the life course, we must be attentive to biological givens, to developmental processes and the socialization of the person, to social and cultural contexts that not only define the meaning of life and the goals to be sought but the means available for the pursuit of one’s goals, and finally to the historical context and the way in which the events and the spirit of a particular era shape the life experience of members of a given cohort (p. 8)

The life course view does not focus on individual aspects of a person’s life in isolation, but seeks to understand how particular facets of the life course relate to other facets, or how particular strands of experience came to be strung together (Clausen, 1986). Timing at various levels is a major focus of understanding human life through a life course lens. The life course perspective sees individuals as embedded in a context changing along three temporal dimensions, “life” or “ontogenic” time, one’s age from birth to death; “family” time, or location within the flow of prior and succeeding generations; and “historical” time - the social and cultural system that exists in the world when one is born and the changing circumstances regarding this system that occur during one’s life (Clausen, 1986, Lerner, 2002). The impact of a historical event on the life course of a cohort reflects the age and stage at which it was experienced (Elder, 1985). The concepts of trajectories and transitions or turning points are also key elements in the life course model (Elder, 1985). The life trajectory is the overall pathway defined by the aging process or the movement through chronological time. In the life course perspective, the term trajectory does not prejudge the direction, degree, or rate of change of its course. Transitions or turning points are events that modify life trajectories, which in turn also give the transitions form and meaning (Elder, 1985). The nature of changes to the life path

27 may be affected by a number of variables: characteristics of the event such as its duration or severity; the resources, beliefs, and experiences one brings to the situation, how one defines the event; and the choice one makes among available alternatives in response to the event (Elder, 1985). Thus life course theory takes into account many aspects of a person’s life and the way these parts interact to form a life path along which he travels over the span of his life. One strength of this model is it flexibility and it ability to encompass many different types of cultural, social, and individual variation (Giele & Elder, 1998). The life course differs from the concept of the life cycle in that it allows for many diverse roles and events that do not necessarily proceed in a given order, but that make up the whole of the person’s experience over time (Giele & Elder, 1998). Another strength of the model is its open examination of the culture and context in which the person lives, which makes it universally applicable and also provides a means of comparing the life experiences of people within a given culture. This framework thus works well when viewing the life course of never-married singles, as their paths are diverse, and their lives do not follow the expected sequence of events. The life course model would attend to the ways that singles in the US make choices about their relationships, the ways they deal with their divergence from the “typical” path of American adults, and the ways their lives change across chronological, social, and historical time. Working assumptions of the current study The goal of this study was not to test a model or theory of adult development, but to view singlehood in a developmental context, informed by a variety of ideas about adult development. In pulling the various pieces together, I am using a “both-and” framework (Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg & Walker, 1990). While traditional research may have demanded a choice of one model to the exclusion of others, the current study is based on an integration of elements from theories with diverse roots. My working assumptions are summarized below: 1. People’s lives are the result of an interaction between innate psychological and biological characteristics and the social-cultural-historical context in which they live. The norms of one’s culture set the stage for expected life events and pathways. It is not possible to understand an individual’s lived experience without consideration of the context in which he/she lives.

2. People face tasks or issues they must deal with through their lives, e.g., identity, intimacy, and generativity issues. These issues do not appear in a particular order and may be revisited in different forms across the life span. 3. People tend to pass through phases of relative stability alternating with periods of transition. The phases may involve interpersonal relationship issues, identity issues, and/or career issues, among others. Transitions may be instigated by novel experiences, which the person must now fit into his/her way of understanding the world, or through discovery that past choices are no longer satisfactory to maintain his perceived role in life. Re-evaluation periods are particularly relevant for societies that encourage conscious decision making about life paths. 4. What constitutes development? I do not propose an end point or specific goal of development, but rather, in Levinson’s footsteps, see progress as successive movement along life paths or choices that “work” for the individual, within a given societal context. These facets together make up my basic working model of adult development, or adult positive functioning. The current study examined how never married singles face the life issues of identity, intimacy, and generativity within their cultural contexts and how their work in these tasks relates to their subjective well-being. Additionally, it investigated the relation of stability and transitions to work on life tasks and subjective well-being. Singlehood Development Tasks In some models (e.g. Vaillant, 1977), marriage has been seen as an important developmental step marking the transition to adulthood. Singles, however, must negotiate this passage into adulthood without the public ceremony. Several theorists have proposed models of adult development specifically for singles. Schwartzberg, Berliner and Jacob (1995) proposed a model based on age, while Lewis (1994, 2001) proposed a model based on tasks for singles to accomplish that do not have a requisite order or time frame. Schwartzberg, Berliner and Jacob (1995) proposed a model of adult development specifically for singles based on tasks to be accomplished at different ages. They view adult development, and single adult development, as embedded within a context of the multigenerational family to which an individual belongs, as well as race, ethnicity and culture. They also ground their model in Bowen’s family theory with particular attention to his concept of differentiation, meaning the tension between pulls of togetherness and separateness. These

29 pulls are much like the ones Kegan (1982) emphasized in his model. In addition, they consider how attitudes toward marital status are affected by patterns of family interaction that move across generations (vertically) and develop within generations (horizontally), a theory articulated by Carter and McGoldrick (1989). In accord with the emphasis on family relationships, Schwartzberg et al. focus in their model on singles’ changing ways of relating to their families and how the family affects feelings about singlehood and desire for marriage. Though their model begins with singles in their twenties, what they call the “not yet married phase,” I will focus on the stages pertaining to midlife. Upon reaching their thirties, singles enter what Schwartzberg et al. (1995) deem the “Twilight Zone” of singlehood, which involves the need to face single status as a possibly long- term situation for the first time. Singles in their thirties must begin to define their own roles in their families of origin, which should involve open discussion with family about singlehood. Singles also need to expand their sense of what constitutes family, and develop friendships that offer intimacy and support. At this time, Schwartzberg et al. claim, it is important to begin accepting one’s single status, “giving up the illusion that their adult life has not started” (75). This does not mean giving up all hope of ever marrying, but stresses the importance of making one’s current life meaningful, through acts such as creating a stable living situation, perhaps buying a home. They also suggest this time as an opportunity to expand traditional gender roles, where women should consider career and financial planning, and men should pay more attention to building relationships. Finally, nearing the end of the thirties requires making some decisions about having children and confronting the possibility of never marrying. In the period from the forties to mid-fifties, singles need to address the fantasy of married life as “ideal,” that singles are on the outside looking in to “real” life. This also implies accepting the possibility of never marrying and never having one’s own biological children, particularly for women. At this point comes a time to reassess one’s job and whether and how it offers the personal meaning desired, with the possibility of beginning a second “life plan” (90). This is particularly important for singles since often so much of the personal meaning in their lives is related to career. Also important at this stage is defining an authentic life as a single, including intimate relationships that may not lead to marriage, connecting with future generations through work product or relationships with children, and creating a relationship to the larger community. A self-defined adult role in the family should be consolidated at this

point, which includes developing separate relationships with children in extended family and hosting family celebrations. Throughout the model, Schwartzberg et al. (1995) emphasize the need for singles to expand beyond socialized gender roles, in that women must take responsibility for their careers and financial stability, and men must learn how to create and maintain lasting friendships. They focus primarily on three main tasks: accepting singlehood, negotiating an adult role in the family, and creating a fulfilling life through career, friendships, and connections to family and community. What differs among stages are social and biological aspects such as attitudes of family and society toward singles, time limits on having children, and “progress” through life cycle events of peers. Lewis’ (1994, 1997, 2001) model of development offers a list of “nonsequential developmental tasks for adult singlehood.” She acknowledges the lack of a “road map” for adult singlehood, and bases her model on Mason’s (1991) model for women’s development. Lewis’s model includes eight tasks. Lewis (1994) describes Grounding as feeling part of a community, preparing for one’s financial future, grounding in social life, in a career, and in a home. The Friendships/Emotional Intimacy tasks include maintaining friendships, pruning friendships to keep them relevant, making new friends, and perhaps developing a peer family, all of which provide fulfillment of emotional intimacy needs. Basic Daily Needs for security, for touch, for rituals and celebration of special events, and for enjoyable free time, must also be met. Singles must be aware of Sexual Feelings and decide on a means of expressing or denying them. Mutual Empowerment and Nurturance needs include making decisions about children and both nurturing others and being nurtured by others. The task of Grieving involves living with the ambiguity of being single and grieving for lost dreams and plans, but not taking others’ (e.g. family’s) grieving on as one’s own. This is related to the task of Making Peace with Parents, in which the single person may need to coach parents on how to treat him/her as an adult, resolve old family issues, and avoid absorbing negative family messages. Finally, the Old Age task requires singles to develop positive images of themselves as older single adults, prepare financially and socially for old age, and be able to look back on life with satisfaction. Learning from models discussed previously, it is important to note that resolution of these tasks may not happen once and for all, but may be revisited throughout the life course and the aging process.

It is likely that since much of the traditional developmental literature claims that marriage is a necessary component of development, people who do not marry will feel that they are not making adequate developmental progress. This may lead to lower self-esteem and other psychological symptoms. This study will look at where singles see themselves in light of both traditional and newer developmental models, and will examine the relationship between perceived developmental progress, desire to marry, and life satisfaction. Marital Status and Well-being Between group studies: Comparing married and single persons A great deal of literature has examined the well-being and life satisfaction of never married singles. Much of this literature has compared never married singles, divorced and widowed singles, and married individuals. Research over the past twenty years has primarily found married persons to report greater life satisfaction and well-being than singles of all types (Austrum, 1984; Pearlin & Johnson, 1977). Studies have found higher levels of emotional and physical health problems, including alcoholism, suicide, mortality, and schizophrenia among the unmarried than the married (see Coombs, 1991 for review). Such diverse indices of well-being are beyond the scope of this study, which will focus on subjective well-being such as self- reported happiness, distress, and life satisfaction. On diverse measures of subjective well-being, research has found married persons to be better off than never married persons, who in turn are better off than the divorced and widowed (Gove, Hughes & Style, 1983; Marks, 1996; Mookherjee, 1997). Never married men fare worse than never married women (Gove, Hughes & Style, 1983; Marks, 1996). While the direction of results is consistent across studies, the strength of the relationship is perhaps not as large as might be expected. Haring-Hidore, Stock, Okun and Witter (1985) found in their meta-analysis of 58 studies conducted prior to 1980 that the weighted mean relation of martial status and subjective well-being (SWB) across 111 effects sizes was .14 (weighted SD=.09), with a range of -.37 to .36. They concluded that marital status thus accounts for around 2% of variance in the perception of well-being. The relationship between marital status and SWB was slightly stronger for men than for women, but even for men explained only 3% of the variance. Controlling for activity, age, education, health or income had little effect on the marital status-subjective well-being relationship. These results suggest that while the

32 relationship between marital status and subjective well-being, other variables contribute far more to the makeup of well-being. Within the literature studying the relationship between marital status and well-being exists a subset of literature examining the mechanisms of influence on life satisfaction. Researchers have proposed two primary models, including the social selection model, which suggests that persons who are better adjusted are more likely to marry and remain married, thus accounting for differences in well-being between the two groups, and the causation model, wherein the marriage relationship itself offers benefits that directly lead to increased well-being for married persons. This effect might take several forms. Role theory maintains the clearly defined social functions, acceptable social status of marriage and avoidance of the pressures of living alone protect against distress (Bachrach, 1975) while the lack of a normative, defined role for singles may lead to lower well-being (Johnston & Ecklund, 1984). Marriage may also serve as a “protective barrier…from the full impact of external strains” (Pearlin & Johnson, 1977, p. 717). Benefits of marriage also include being connected to others in a long-term contract, having obligations to others, a greater sense of meaning in life, taking advantage of economies of scale and specialization or exchange of labor within the marriage, and sharing of economic and social resources (Waite, 1995). Readily available social support may also be a contributor to the protective effects of marriage (Marks, 1996). Several researchers have found results that do not support the selection hypothesis. Gove, Hughes and Style (1983) found that childhood problem experiences, used as a proxy for factors affecting selection effects, was not a strong predictor of mental health. Tucker, Friedman, Wingard and Schwartz (1996) found similar results, in that their never married and consistently married groups did not differ on childhood personality or parental divorce measures, implying that the never married remained so by choice as opposed to selection factors. Gove, Style and Hughes (1990) articulate a set of explanations for why selection factors do not appear to be major determinants in the relationship between well-being and marital status. These include the consistency in the relationship between marital status and well-being even when controlling for SES, a variable potentially reactive to selective factors and the stability of the relationship between well-being for the married and unmarried, which they posit should change as a cohort ages if selection plays a role. Mastekaasa (1992) however, argues in favor of selection effects based on his longitudinal study of the entire population of one of Norway’s rural

33 counties. He found that measures of well-being at one point in time predict transition to marriage at later times, such that for men and women age 26-39, a 1-unit change in the 7-point satisfaction measure was associated with a 24% change in the (conditional) probability of marrying 22-47 months later. Mastekaasa’s position is, however, a minority one. While theory and research favor the causation model over the selection model, limitations of past methodology (e.g., cross-section design, restricted samples, and variations in operationalizing selection processes) mean that we are far from having conclusive evidence. There is some evidence that the relationship between marital status and well-being is changing over time. Haring-Hidore, Stock, Okun and Witter (1985) found in their meta-analysis that this relationship was stronger in earlier studies than in more recent ones. In examining data from the General Social Survey from 1972 through 1986, Glenn and Weaver (1988) discovered a smaller difference in happiness between married and never married persons, accounted for primarily by increasing numbers of never married men reporting they are “very happy” and decreasing numbers of married women reporting this quality. They attribute these changes to increasing individualism and hedonism in the US, leaving marriage with less value and viability. Additionally, they claim, differences between married and unmarried life, such as regular sexual relations without stigma and financial security, have diminished, leading to fewer advantages of being married. In a replication and extension of Glenn and Weaver’s study, Lee, Seccombe and Shehan (1991) examined General Social Survey data from 1972 through 1989. Data from the last three years of this data set showed that differences in happiness between married and never-married increased substantially during this time, especially in 1987 and 1988. They found a sharp rise in happiness of never married women over age 18 from 23.0% reporting being “very happy” in 1988 to 35.2% in 1989. Lee, Seccombe and Shehan were unable to determine without later data whether this indicated a turning point or sampling variability. Their findings concurred with Glenn and Weaver’s in the increasing happiness of never-married men, but not in the decreasing happiness of married women. Thus, they conclude, “newer data do suggest that the trend identified by Glenn and Weaver is neither as strong nor as consistent as their earlier evidence indicated” (p. 843). I was unable to locate any more recent updates on this line of research addressing changes in the relationship between marital status and happiness over time.

The evidence for a decline in the impact of marriage on happiness or life satisfaction may lead some to deduce that the need for research on singlehood and well-being is now less important. However, I would argue that this changing relationship between marital status and well-being heralds greater need for research on well-being of singles in order to better understand both the variations within the population of never married singles and to begin to examine the impact of recent societal change on the experiences of singles.

Within group studies: Singles’ well-being In addition to comparing married and single persons, a small set of literature examining the well-being of singles and singles’ lived experiences has developed within the past 20 years. Loewenstein et al. (1981) interviewed 60 midlife women who defined themselves as single and found a number of factors correlated with life satisfaction (LS), including health, loneliness, living alone or with others, having many casual friends, subjective importance of work, and perceived salary fairness. They observed that good health does not ensure high life satisfaction, but does play a major role. The presence of a peer companion in the household was also closely associated with high life satisfaction. This contrasts with Hughes and Gove’s (1981) observation that adults living with adults to whom they were related had a strong negative impact on their well-being, due to high levels of demands and very little privacy. Thus, it appears that living with friends or peers is a positive experience while living with family has more negative aspects. This is consistent with the finding that loneliness appears to be strongly related to lower LS and well-being (Loewenstein et al., 1981; Cockrum & White, 1985). Loewenstein et al. found no relationship between LS and age, religious involvement or education. Cockrum and White (1985) offered a two variable model for predicting life satisfaction in their study of 60 never married men and women. For men, they found that self-esteem and the presence of a network of persons with shared interests and values predicted LS, while for women emotional loneliness and the presence of affectional, close relationships that provide a sense of security and peace predict LS. Lewis and Borders (1995) examined the relationship between activity, trait, and relationship variables and life satisfaction for single women between the ages of 35 and 65 in the field of academia. Their stepwise regression model included job satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, regrets regarding life circumstances, internal locus of control, and leisure time activities (R2=.62). Gender identity, social support, health, and financial resources did not

35 add significant predictive ability to the model, but the limited number of items on these variables and hence low variability of scores may have affected this. While the results of this study are interesting, the implications are limited by methodology that did not take into account type of single (e.g., divorced, never-married, widowed). On a broader scale, Davies (1995) used data from the National Survey of Families and Households from 1987-1988 to examine economic and psychosocial factors and psychological distress among never married men and women and differences in relationships between these variables for married and never married persons. They found that the only gender difference on distress among singles indicated a much lower average level of distress for single women age 45- 64 than for their male counterparts. Single women in this age group also reported higher levels of self-esteem than single men in the same age group. Marks and Lambert (1998) arrived at similar results, finding that while never married singles became more depressed and less happy over time, consistent never-married status led to less unhappiness for women than for men and that “single midlife adults fare better than single young adults,” particularly in regard to positive relations with others and personal mastery (p. 673). While this set of literature has much to offer, it is limited by lack of theoretical grounding, methodological issues, variable response rates, and inconsistent categorization of “singles.” Additionally, the literature in this area approaches the topic from many different directions, making it challenging to put it together into a coherent set of findings that advance knowledge. This study both builds on this past research and also takes it in a different direction. The current study emphasizes how life satisfaction and well-being are related to developmental tasks and life trajectories. Rather than conducting simple comparisons among groups, this study examines the well-being of never married singles with more explicitly articulated models of development and well-being. This offers a stronger conceptual framework for this study to advance our understanding of singles’ experiences. Well-Being and Life Satisfaction Quality of life can be measured in several ways. “Objective” measurement includes assessing to what extent one’s life meets observable criteria of the “good life” (Veenhoven, 1996). Subjective means involve judgments about one’s own quality of life, or life satisfaction. George (1979) defines life satisfaction as a cognitive appraisal of one’s progress toward desired goals. Subjective and objective means of assessing quality of life overlap considerably. For

36 example, physical health and education are two criteria on which objective assessments of quality of life are made, and have also been found to strongly predict subjective evaluations of life satisfaction. Research on life satisfaction has raised a number of questions about how the construct of life satisfaction can be defined and measured. Life satisfaction might be described as a cognitive appraisal of one’s life compared to some standard - an abstract ideal or a person one sees as a exemplary (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985). This social appraisal method differs from an affective method of examining life satisfaction, wherein one infers satisfaction from overall mood (Veenhoven, 1996). How one arrives at these judgments is also unclear, such that judgments about different aspects of one’s life might add up to form an overall impression (a bottom-up approach) or judgments about specific aspects may be inferred from overall sense of satisfaction (a top-down approach). Another question in the life satisfaction literature is the element of causality, meaning how life events influence appraisals of life satisfaction and how life satisfaction may influence interpretation of events. This is related to the issue of whether life satisfaction is more of a state or a trait – “a ‘variable state’ that results from continuous evaluation of life” or a general tendency to like or dislike things, respectively (Veenhoven, p. 28). A number of demographic variables and individual characteristics have been found to correlate with well-being. Research has found self-ratings of health to be significantly associated with well-being (Okun, Stock, Haring & Witter, 1984). Studies have also found socioeconomic status (comprised of educational attainment, income, and occupational status) to be significantly correlated with well-being (Haring, Stock & Okun, 1984). Additionally, researchers have found personality traits, including Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, to correlate with well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). There has been some debate in the literature on well-being and life satisfaction as to whether measures are capturing the essence of what was intended. Ryff (1989) explains that early conceptions of well-being were mistakenly focused on measuring happiness. Early researchers located the root of this focus in Aristotle’s (1947) idea the highest of all goods achievable by human action is eudaimonia, translated by researchers as “happiness.” This was the foundation of a 20-year history of research on happiness, primarily operationalized as the balance between positive and negative affect. Ryff argues that a more precise definition of

37 eudaimonia is “realization of one’s true potential.” She proposes a model of Psychological Well- Being that incorporates this “neglected” aspect of positive psychological functioning. Research Questions Previous studies of life satisfaction among singles have been limited by using specific subsets of singles (e.g. academics), by grouping always single and single again persons together, and by methods used to assess life satisfaction. This study goes beyond a demographic approach to examine how developmental tasks and consolidation/evaluation of identity contribute to well- being for never married singles. Q1: How does current developmental status contribute to Subjective Well-Being? Lewis (1994) and Schwartzberg et al. (1995) highlight the important developmental tasks that single individuals negotiate throughout their lives. Their work provides the underpinnings for the second research question: Q2. How does self-reported progress on singlehood development tasks contribute to Subjective Well-Being? Baxter-Magolda, Levinson and Kegan provide innovative frameworks for examining the developmental trajectories of adult lives. While their work has not focused directly on single individuals, it does provide a conceptual model for researching the life course of singles who are at midlife. These developmental models underpin the third research question of this project: Q3. How does location in the cycle of moving between the consolidation and reassessment of identity and life meaning contribute to Subjective Well-Being? Chapter 2: Focus Groups I evaluated the theoretical bases of the singlehood development scale and developed additional items through focus groups with members of the target population. Method Participants I conducted two focus groups/interviews with members recruited from university faculty and staff, and one interview with a member recruited at a professional conference. Participants were self-identified heterosexual, never-married singles not currently living with a romantic partner. One man (age 37) and five women (ages 36, 38, 42, 46) participated in focus groups/interviews with the purpose of developing an initial item pool for the singlehood development scale.

Procedure Flyers advertising the focus groups were distributed to every campus office. I received a total of nine responses, but had difficulty coordinating times that people were able to meet. Thus, one focus group consisted of three women. One man was interviewed individually. In order to gather more information, the researcher interviewed another woman at a national conference. The groups began with brief introductions of the topic, the plan, and the group members. The researcher then asked participants a series of questions about their experiences as singles, such as “What kinds of tasks do singles need to accomplish to live fulfilling lives? In particular, what challenges do singles face that married persons do not, in terms of what we might call ‘growing up’?” The researcher then asked participants about their experiences with and comments on each of Lewis’s eight categories and their corresponding tasks. The plan for the focus groups can be found in Appendix A. While using the plan as a stating point, the researcher followed relevant lines of inquiry as they arose in conversation. Either an assistant or the researcher took notes during the discussions, noting phrases, key words and ideas used in the discussions, as well as which participant said what. Following the focus group and interviews, the researcher returned to the written notes and highlighted phrases that captured a perspective for each of the questions and categories in the plan. The researcher also looked for examples of perspectives that did not appear in the original plan. These themes were noted for consistency across participants, with an awareness of gender, age, and life stage differences. The researcher then organized the responses into clusters and themes, noting the variety of perspectives in each. Results While the primary goal of the focus groups was to verify and expand on Lewis’ and Schwartzberg et al.’s tasks for singles, the groups also served to highlight the different ways that singles experience themselves and their lives. The focus group members had diverse perspectives and views of their lives as singles. Participants identified both benefits and drawbacks of being single. The group of university women identified more benefits of singlehood, took more pride in their lives as singles, and claimed that marriage was not something they desired. The conference participant (to be referred to as Kelly for the purposes

of the following discussion) and the male participant (to be referred to as James) both identified more drawbacks to being single, and expressed a strong desire to marry in the future. A number of themes arose within the focus groups that merit attention, beyond their contribution to scale development. These themes offer vital pictures of the lives of a small set of never-married singles. Benefits and costs: When asked what singlehood means to them, participants identified benefits, such as independence, fewer complications, and freedom; and also some drawbacks, such as being lonely sometimes, with social circles shrinking as more friends marry. Friends: Several women had recently moved to a new city, and discussed the difficulty of making new friends. Participants also talked about having both single and married friends, and the greater difficulty of coordinating schedules with married friends. One participant reported that she may have put too much emphasis on work and not enough on making friends after she moved to a new town. It seemed that finding friends required actual work, and while these singles engaged in this work to a greater or lesser degree, all identified friendships as important for their happiness. Kelly pointed out that friends can’t take the place of an intimate partner. After several recent moves, she found it difficult to make friends when she was not settled. James described his large extended family as his primary friends. He claimed not to believe in platonic friendships between men and women. He talked about “getting out of the house every once in a while,” but did not seem to desire more friendships. Instead, he had a strong desire to marry and have children. Work: All of the participants identified work as an important element in their lives. One single reported that her work is what drives her, and that her move was for a great work opportunity. They emphasized the need for a meaningful career. Kelly also noted that higher education and a career may be intimidating to men, thus making a relationship less likely. James described his life as primarily consumed by work, school, and sleep. He was near to finishing a degree, at which point he felt he would come closer to financial stability. Freedom/choices/selfishness: The women connected singlehood with both freedom and selfishness, as opposite sides of the same coin. One woman said that being accustomed to doing what she wanted to do could be seen as selfish, and another reported that she had been single so long that now she did not want to give up her options, she did not want to compromise. This was followed with the comment that it is not usually the man who makes the major concessions in a

40 married couple. These women seemed to feel that their lives could be truly self-directed other as singles. Another aspect of being “selfish” was their ability to choose committees and involvements based on their own interests and the option to be nurturing when they wanted, they did not have to do it every day. They also recognized that others may see singles as selfish. Kelly, in spite of wanting to be married, reported liking the control she had over her free time. James talked of the single as having less responsibilities and being concerned only with one’s own goals. He also talked about how being selfish can mess up a relationship and in love the need to put the other’s needs first. Freedom and selfishness may be the same thing viewed from different perspectives on singlehood and life choices. Responsibility/dependence/strength/self-reliance: When asked an open-ended question about what tasks singles need to accomplish, participants identified some tasks that were “no different than being married,” such as buying a house and putting down roots. Having said this, they qualified this with these being a different challenge for singles, especially as women, because, “what if this goes wrong?” They also saw being responsible for oneself and not having a backup, not being dependent on others as part of singlehood. They seemed to express some wistfulness as they concurred on the difficulty of having no one to help with shuttling to car repair or care for them when sick. Not having someone to care for them could be a “heavy load” at times. Even as participants talked about not having a backup, or someone to take care of them when they are sick, one woman reported that she does not get resentful because she picked the life of a single. On the flip side, the women expressed great pride in their strength and self- reliance, their ability to do things around the house; one woman described how she got a book and figured out how to put a new roof on her house. They compared themselves with married women, whom they viewed as not needing to learn these things for themselves. Financial responsibility was a significant concern for Kelly and James. Kelly reported that she was saving for a house, and is not counting on someone to help her out with this, but was “stressed out” about being able to afford a house. Overall, the need to take care of oneself can be an additional burden but also a source of strength and pride for singles. Children/nurturing: The university women expressed some regrets about not having children. They had variously considered adoption and foster care, but felt at this point it was either “too late” or too hard as a single woman. One woman felt she had never really made a decision about children, but rather it had gotten too late and so the choice was moot. In lieu of

having children of their own, they turned to other ways of connecting with children and providing nurturance. One woman claimed that not having children is a reason she enjoys her job in education so much. Being close to family of origin and caring for aging parents were also ways they felt nurturing. James had a nearly grown child with whom he was in contact, but wanted to have more children, and had thought about adopting. He claimed that he would not have a child until he was financially stable. For now, he was close to his many nieces and nephews and was involved in several activities with children, such as teaching karate. Contribution to society: The university women mentioned giving back, or contributing to society, throughout their discussion. They seemed to view this as part of, or in addition to, a meaningful career. Some identified a greater desire to help others as they got older. Giving back to the community was an important part of life for James. He reported political involvement and an investment in his community through volunteering at a rape crisis center. Home: Participants had very different views of and feelings toward the places where they live. Several women owned houses, and talked about making it their own, using it as their creative outlet and being proud of it. Another woman talked about her apartment as a place to eat and sleep, though claimed she would buy a house if she thought she would stay in the city she lived in. Kelly had concerns about financial responsibility for a house and also expressed some apprehension about moving to a community and being the single person there- she felt she could “hide it better” in an apartment. James had recently moved into his own place after living with a sibling for a while, and found life better in his own place, because “it’s yours.” In some ways he was more grounded than the other participants, in his living in the same area where he grew up and his daily connections with family, yet in other ways he seemed the least settled, nearing the end of his degree and waiting to settle down. Rituals: The university women began by describing their frustration with wedding showers and baby showers, while there are no comparable celebrations for singles. Some resentment of these occasions surfaced, with the focus always on others. Their own personal rituals consisted primarily of daily events, such as going to bed with tea and a book, walking the dog, watching the news, and Friday night movies. James reported no rituals, that his life was comprised of school, work and sleeping. He seemed to be sad about having “no one to celebrate with.”

Emotional connection: They briefly talked about the need for reciprocal emotional connections with family, friends, and neighbors. One woman described a number of deep long distance friendships, and considered that she may need her friends more than married people do. Family constituted a major way that the singles maintained close emotional bonds. Intimacy/sex: The university women claimed that they miss intimacy and physical touch, from sex to having someone to rub their back or feet. They spoke of suppressing needs, but also of decreased desire for sex as they have gotten older. They joked with this a bit, quipping, “do I remember how?” They spoke of being cautious, of seeing the consequences of more casual sexual relationships. One woman also spoke of building walls that may keep others from getting too close. Another related that she is much more reluctant now to get involved. One concern was that their getting involved would likely be with someone who was divorced and/or had children. One woman who had recently moved was in a long-distance relationship and found she missed the physical intimacy. The conference participant claimed to be much healthier sexually than she was in her early 20s. She did not want a one night stand, as she would not find that satisfying, but was frustrated at being “in her prime” with no outlets for sexuality. James talked about missing physical intimacy, and trying to cope with this by staying busy and putting it out of his mind. In general, participants missed physical intimacy and sex, but did not want more casual encounters and coped by staying busy or suppressing desires. Singlehood as choice/grieving: This was one of the most striking discussions in the university women’s group, and one of the biggest differences among the groups. The university women concurred that marriage was really not something they wanted. One woman said that in her 20s, marriage was not really on her agenda; in her 30s she might have been open to it if she met the right guy, but with other foci in her life, she never did. She expressed greater regret at not having a child than not marrying. Another woman claimed that she always said she would never marry; she was focused purely on career and believed that a spouse or kids could not be part of that. While she had a serious relationship and thought about marriage in her 30s, the relationship broke up and she also expressed regret only about not having children. They alternately talked about being single not as a conscious choice, and also as a path they chose. This view contrasts with Lewis’ (2001) concept of grieving as a necessary task for singles. These women seemed to have no real need to grieve- they did not feel like marriage was something they missed. They also spoke about divorced friends providing them with a contrast

43 to their own lives, in turn giving them more faith in their own life paths. In looking back over their feelings about singlehood, the researcher commented that it seemed like singlehood never really felt negative to them, and they all agreed with this. This sense differed from that of Kelly. She described feelings of anxiety and sadness about being single. She reported that she hasn’t given up, but “just wants to be settled.” She, also, compared her life with that of married people and decided that people can also feel alone in a bad marriage, and realizing the number of unhappy couples makes her situation feel less sad. She disagreed with the term grieving, but instead suggested “accepting” being single, which she seemed to be actively struggling with. When her brother married, she assumed she would be the next to marry. Knowing that others have married at later ages gives her hope that she may still find someone. James seemed to feel much the same as Kelly. He felt that being single “sucks” and he would much rather be part of a couple. As he talked about his life, he described pushing happiness and marriage off to the side, to seek work and other life experiences first. Now his dream is to raise a child in a house, to work 9 to 5, to have the “American dream,” the life that “normal people” have. He saw grieving as coming to terms with being single. He could recognize some benefits of being single, but had strong hopes of marrying. He spoke about the need to be happy with one’s self before trying to be happy with others, and seemed to be struggling with this. He spoke about validation from inside sources, but also believes that if he is still single in old age, he will be a very depressed, sad person. Currently he is trying to fill his life up, and reported that he will never give up on finding happiness, and wants to share that happiness. Change over time: The university women described life becoming more complex over time, realizing as they moved into their 30s and 40s that they didn’t know everything like they thought they did in their 20s. They talked about looking back more now than they used to, in comparison to being more future-oriented when they were younger. They had all experienced the loss of a parent or close friends, and this seemed to make them reflect more thoughtfully on their choices and what the future held in store for them. One woman expressed some concern about who might care for her when she got older. Kelly described how she knew she was not ready to marry in her 20s, then in her 30s she began to feel ready and now sees 40 as a “marker” by which time she hopes to be married. Despite this desire, she considered what it would be like

44 as an older single, and stated a desire for people around her age to grow old with, perhaps a friend to live with like kin. Views of singlehood/adulthood: Lewis (2001) suggests that singles may have greater difficulty being seen as adults in the outside world. The university women reported no difficulties becoming “adults” in their families. Several women described taking on an adult role in the family even as children, due to economic or caretaking needs. Kelly described several ways in which she does not feel quite like an adult, for example, when she travels, her parents ask for her travel information, as she does not yet have friends to take that role. In addition, her family has called her selfish for wanting to live alone when she is not financially well-off and was not sure she could afford to attend a family wedding. Family: Contrary to the majority of society, the parents of the women either supported their singlehood or even advocated singlehood for their daughters. One woman’s father had emphasized the importance of being independent, while her mother had concerns about her singlehood, but had grown into greater acceptance. Another woman’s father was strongly in favor of education, and her parents warned her not to marry. Kelly stated that her parents never pressured her to marry, and her mom even suggests staying single. James was raised by his mother after his parents divorced early. His mom never dated after the divorce and was “fine with being single.” Her main desire was that he be happy. Participants’ families, particularly parents, seemed to be generally supportive and accepting of their single status, or more became so over time. This deviates from some of the literature that emphasizes cultural and familial pressure to marry felt by singles. Discussion The results of the focus group and interviews demonstrate, with a small number of participants, the variety of perspectives singles have concerning their lived experiences, desires, and satisfaction. Singles identified both costs and benefits of being single at midlife. Singles reported some loneliness, with more difficulty making new friends as they got older. They particularly missed the physical aspects of intimacy and touch often found in romantic relationships. Participants talked about sometimes missing someone to serve as “backup” for them or help them when ill or with other needs. Singles discussed some financial concerns and expressed some regrets about not having children. Some singles admitted to feeling unsettled at times, and some participants felt anxiety and sadness about being single at times. Some of these

45 costs are consistent with the negative view of singlehood. All of the costs reflect lives without a component many people feel adds meaning and worth to their lives. However, it was clear that the participants did not view their lives as meaningless or deficient. In contrast to the pitfalls of being single, participants in the focus groups and interviews spent a significant amount of time discussing the advantages of being single. They talked about valuing the freedom they have to make decisions they feel are best for their lives, and the independence they feel in making their own choices. In this way, they described themselves as self-directed, and able to set their own priorities. Through self-reliance, they developed strengths they feel people in relationships might not have developed, such as learning new skills and knowing they could accomplish hard tasks. Thus, singles identified ways that they feel singlehood has led to increased engagement in life and ways they have learned to get more out of life through being single. Participants talked about some qualities or life elements that are important components in creating a meaningful/successful single life. They identified having friends for support and connection as a central need. A support system may be made up of friends or extended family, both of which serve as means of reciprocal emotional connection and plain enjoyment. Singles also talked about the role of work in their lives and the importance of a meaningful career. Through work or other means, participants also discussed the felt need to contribute to society. Singles noted that financial stability is a critical and challenging component of a settled single life. Many of these needs are similar to those for non-singles, but for singles, each of these needs seems to play a more vital role in felt security and satisfaction. One area of complexity, and where the most marked contrast was seen was in the area of choice and grieving. Several of the women described singlehood as a conscious choice, or else said marriage was never something they desired. Others talked about a keen desire for marriage and hope of marrying in the future. Yet in spite of this difference, all participants were active in careers and their communities, had friends, and talked about their strengths. This research suggests that singles lived experiences are often in marked contrast to the mythology of singlehood present in popular media. One portrayal of singles is of the partying, “swinging single.” The participants in this study were distinctly different from this picture, describing strengths of singlehood as increased knowledge and personal growth. Part of this image of singles is that they are irresponsible, with singles denying their responsibilities to

46 society and refusing to settle down to become adults. Participants in this study were highly invested in careers, community involvement and self-care, demonstrating commitment to helping others and doing their share of the work in society. An alternate view of singles is one of the depressed, desperate single yearning for marriage. While some participants expressed sadness, for the most part they worked to pursue their own goals and were leading fulfilling, satisfying lives. Part of the “desperate single” portrait is the assumption that all people want to marry (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). It is evident from this study that some singles do want to marry, while others do not have this as a goal. The singlehood development literature contained the task of grieving (Lewis, 2001), which may not be a necessary task for all singles, as this task makes the assumption that not marrying is a significant loss for singles. In line with the assumed desire to marry is the belief that all parents want their children to marry. Participants in this study described a range of family reactions that did not always include the desire for them to marry. We thus begin to see, from qualitative evidence, that singles lead complex lives, experience both positive and negative aspects of singlehood, and differ from the stereotypical portraits of singles that abound in the media. The quantitative part of this study will investigate this further. Chapter 3: Measure development Method Participants The same sample of participants was used in the process of developing all three of the measures described below. Participants were 171 never married singles (40 men and 131 women) who participated in an online survey with the option to enter a $100 lottery. The mean age of the participants was 38.96 (SD= 3.40). One hundred thirty-three (77.8%) of the participants were Caucasian, six (3.5%) were Hispanic/Latino, 25 (14.6%) were Black/African- American/Haitian, 8 (4.7%) were Asian, 2 (1.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1 (.6%) was Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The percentages add up to more than 100% because participants were allowed to choose multiple options. Participants live in 32 different states, with the greatest number (11.1%) living in Texas, and approximately 6% each living in California, North Carolina, New York, and Ohio. The majority (70.2%) of participants lived alone, and participants were nearly split between those who owned a home and rented a home, 47.4% and 42.7%, respectively. Respondents tended to live in cities, with 31% stating they live in a metropolis, 19.9% live in a

47 large city, and 24.0% live in a medium sized city. The remaining participants are spread across small cities, large and small towns, and rural areas. The respondents tended to be a well- educated group, with 32.2% earning a four year college degree, 27.5% earning a Master’s degree, and 17.5% earning a doctorate or other professional degree. Twenty one participants (12.3%) attained some college, and an additional 10.5% earned a two-year college degree. Most participants (88.9%) reported not having any children, but 14 (8.2%) reported having one child, one person had two children, two respondents had three children, and one respondent reported having four children. Participants reported moving an average of 5.16 times since they turned 18 (SD=3.70), and indicated that it had been an average of 5 years since their last move (SD=66.02 months). Procedure Collecting data online has numerous advantages. Because never-married singles are a special population without specific organization or representation, an online survey offered increased ability to recruit the desired sample size with a diverse group of participants. Online surveys are more convenient for both participants and researchers, and save time and money on person-hours, equipment, and administration (Reips, 2000). To increase rates of survey completion, a financial incentive was offered and described on the consent page of the survey (Frick, Bachtiger, & Reips, 2001). The incentive consisted of entry in a lottery to receive one hundred dollars. Because midlife singles are scattered across the country, and no specific sampling frame exists for them, a convenience method was used to recruit participants. Requests for participation were distributed as widely as possible across message lists for singles, womens’ studies, social science related newsgroups, and by snowball technique, such that participants were asked to refer people they know who also met the basic qualifications for the study. In addition, information from the web site www.singlesorganizations.com was used to contact organizers of singles’ groups, singles’ ministries, and other organizations pertaining to singles asking them to distribute information about the study by email or flyers developed by the researcher. Finally, the link to the survey was posted on several web sites listing psychology experiments on the web. Recruitment continued in this fashion until the desired sample size was reached.

Participants were directed to a web site where they read an informed consent description, and then chose whether to continue with the survey. When a participant clicked on a link indicating his/her understanding and consent, he/she was randomly directed to one of four surveys. Each of these surveys contained the same measures, but after the demographic section, the order of the measures was changed so that each measure appeared in each position (1,2,3,4) in a Latin-square format. There was no evidence of any order effects for the composite scores of the Satisfaction with Life Scale, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, COIL, Scales of Psychological Well-Being, or SDS. Participants completed the questionnaires online. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire covering health, income, educational attainment, and occupational status. They also completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Deiner, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), the PANAS, a measure of positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and Ryff’s (1989) Scales of Psychological Well- Being. Participants also completed the Singlehood Development Scale and the Construction of Identity Location scale, both of which were developed as part of the current study. The nature of this study as an online survey increased the complexity of determining the number and characteristics of the participants. On the survey web site, participants had the option to begin the study and then end their participation at any time. Thus, many of the surveys were incomplete and could not be used in the data analysis. Additionally, participation in the survey was limited to persons from a specific population, that is, 35-45 years old, never-married heterosexual singles not currently living with a romantic partner. Participation was also limited to those in good or excellent physical health, as physical health has been shown to have a significant impact on life satisfaction (Okun et al., 1984). Finally, participants would be from the U.S., as different countries have different perspectives on and social treatment of singles. While there was no means of directly limiting participation to this population, demographics that contained this information were collected in the survey. Data collected from persons who did not meet the specified criteria could thus be eliminated from the data set prior to data analysis. In addition, the survey web site did not offer a simple means of preventing people from completing the survey more than once. In fact, due to the length of the survey, it appears that some participants began the survey online, had to leave to do another task, and were unable to return to where they had left off and therefore began again from the beginning. In order to remove as many of these “duplicate” entries as possible, the survey entries were sorted according

49 to IP address, examined for similar or identical identifying information, and if duplicates appeared to occur, the latest entry according to the survey participant number was retained. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the data removed prior to data analysis. Once data were collected, each of the three measures developed or revised in this study (COIL, SPWB, and SDS) was analyzed first using principal components analysis and then structural equation modeling to examine scale structure and establish scale reliability. The process of developing or revising each scale is presented below, followed by the results for each scale. For each scale, a principal component analysis was performed to reduce the complexity of the data and to look for underlying structure of the scale. The number of factors was based on Lautenschlager’s (1989) interpolation method of determining eigenvalues for use as parallel analysis criteria. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to further examine the structure of each measure. While ideally this process would confirm the structure of the model on a different sample than was used for the exploratory factor analysis (Noar, 2003), this was not possible in the current study due to the sample size and difficulty recruiting participants. Several models were proposed to compare various structure possibilities (Noar, 2003). For each scale, four models were proposed and examined: 1. A one-factor model assesses whether there is one overall factor, rather than multiple individual factors. 2. An orthogonal factors model tests the idea that multiple factors are uncorrelated. 3. A correlated factors (oblique) model tests the idea that multiple factors are related to one another. 4. A hierarchical model tests the idea that a second-order factor structure explains the relations between the factors. Several fit indices were examined to assess model fit. One set of indices comprise absolute fit measures, which compare the covariance matrix of the generated model with the covariance matrix from the data. The chi-square is one such measure. If the chi-square statistic is nonsignificant, then the two matrices are similar and the model offers a satisfactory representation of the data (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). This statistic has utility for assessing model fit only for large samples, e.g., n > 200 (Kelloway, 1998). Traditionally, the chi-square to

50 degrees of freedom ratio has also been used to evaluate fit, with ratios of less than 5 indicating good fit to the data (Kelloway). Kelloway cautions, however, that there have been conflicting standards for interpretation of this index, with interpretations primarily based on modelers’ experience. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is based on analysis of residuals, is another means of assessing absolute fit (Kelloway). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that a value less than .06 for the RMSEA is required to determine that a model adequately fits the data. Steiger (1990) offers the guideline that RMSEA values below 0.10 indicate good fit, and values below 0.05 indicate very good fit to the data. The RMSEA is listed with a 90% confidence interval. Other fit indices compare the model generated to a “null” or “independence” model, a hypothetical model with no relationships between the variables (Kelloway, 1998). The comparative fit index (CFI) is based on the noncentral chi-square distribution, and has values ranging from 0 to 1, with values greater than 0.9 signifying a good fit to the data. The Tucker- Lewis Index (TLI), also referred to as the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), adjusts the normed fit index for the degrees of freedom in the model (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Kelloway). Values of the TLI/NNFI range from 0 to greater than 1, with higher values indicating better fit. Values above 0.9 are considered to reflect good fit (Kelloway). Construction of Identity Location (COIL) Procedure Marcia’s (1966) model of identity statuses was introduced along with the semi-structured interview and incomplete sentences blank he constructed as measures. In order to develop an operational definition of identity for research purposes, Marcia had to narrow Erikson’s concept of identity (Waterman, 1988). He thus left room for alternate definitions of identity and ways of measuring it. There have been several other attempts at developing self-report questionnaires of identity, including Dignan’s (1965) 50-item Ego Identity Scale; Rasmussen’s (1964) ego identity questionnaire with subscales measuring degree of resolution of each psychosocial stage up to and including identity versus role confusion; Simmons’ (1970) Identity Achievement Scale, constructed by creating multiple choice answers for each of Marcia’s sentence completion items; and Grotevant and Adams’ (1984) Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM- EIS), assessing identity status across several ideological and interpersonal domains. Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, and Geisinger (1995) attempted to develop a measure that addressed problems

51 in previous paper and interview measures, including issues with question content, and overlap of scales. The new measure was intended to take a short time to administer, avoid problems of biased content, provide separate commitment and exploration scores, and be objectively scored (Balistreri et al., 1995). Balistreri et al. noted that the use of continuous scores provides the advantages of increased sensitivity over dichotomous scales and the ability to assess the contribution of each dimension. Their measure consisted of 32 items covering domains of occupation, religion, politics, and values. They report good psychometric properties for this measure, and seem to have developed the strongest measure of identity status in use today. However, there are further issues that precluded the use of this measure in the current study. This measure is not well suited to the population that is the focus of the current study. As discussed previously, the identity status research is aimed primarily at adolescents. Such questions as “I have definitely decided on the occupation I want to pursue” and “I have questioned what kind of date is right for me” suggest that the measure is aimed more at young adults, rather than midlife or older adults who have had more life experience, and who recognize complexity in values and choices, particularly in the areas of occupation and interpersonal relationships. Waterman & Archer (1990) suggest that the sophistication with which the dimensions of exploration and commitment are enacted increases with age, as life experiences may affect both the process and content of identity work in adulthood. Thus, the simplistic view of the four identity statuses may not fully reflect the identity work that takes place in adulthood. There may also be nuances in the statuses that are not captured by the simple combination of exploration and commitment (Schwartz, 2001). Even after addressing these issues, there remain concerns about using self-report measures, such as the role of social desirability in participant responses and possible overlap with other distinct dimensions related to ego identity, such as self-esteem or social competence (Bourne, 1978a). I thus chose a measure of identity construction from outside of the identity status literature on which to base the measurement of identity for this study. Specifically, Reifman, Arnett and Colwell’s (2003) Inventory of the Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood (IDEA) forms the foundation for the measure used in the current study. This measure had the advantage of looking at multiple aspects of identity construction, including identity exploration, experimentation/possibilities, negativity/instability, and feeling “in-between.” The IDEA thus implicitly captures the identity work of emerging adulthood, which is phrased in ways that are applicable to identity construction through the life

52 span. By asking “is this period of your life a time of [concept description],” the set-up of the measure takes into account the idea that identity is not completed once and for all, but that people go through various phases in identity construction and may revisit phases throughout their lives. Thus this measure better captures the flavor of identity construction as conceived of by the author, in the tradition of Levinson, Jung, etc. Modifications were made to Reifman, Arnett and Colwell’s IDEA scale (2003) to arrive at a measure suited for the current study. I read carefully through Levinson’s theory of turning points and transitions, identified key terms and phrases that captured his descriptions of transitions and stages, and compared this list to the IDEA items. I eliminated the IDEA sections on other-focus, self-focus, and feeling “in-between,” because these concepts, as used in the IDEA, seemed to fit a young adult population rather than the young midlife population of the current study. Based on Levinson’s theory, I added sections of items on transition, stagnation, and stability. Additionally, I added one item each to the sections on identity exploration and experimentation sections, while the section on negativity remained as it was in the original IDEA. Finally, I changed the rating scale from four choices to five choices, inserting a neutral point. The resulting scale was named the COIL, or Construction of Identity Location scale. The COIL used for data collection consisted of 47 items (see Appendix B). The items were randomly ordered. They included 6 conceptual categories: Exploration, Experimentation, Negativity, Transition, Stagnation, and Stability. Each category contained 6-10 items. The set of items was introduced with the phrase “Is this period of your life a….” Each item then contained a phrase completing the question, such as “time of confusion,” “time of questioning the meaning of your life,” or “time of balance.” Participants indicated their agreement with each statement using a five point scale, ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree,” with a neutral (3) “neither agree nor disagree” as the midpoint. Higher scores thus reflect greater amounts of the specific construct. The conceptual categories were then examined with exploratory factor analysis. Results Exploratory Factor Analysis From the original 47 items, 17 items were removed from the data set prior to the first factor analysis based on means, variances, skewness and kurtosis indicating a non-normal distribution. Three main factors were found and were given labels of constriction, equilibrium,

and exploration. One factor that appeared to be related to anxiety resulted in Cronbach’s α < .60 and was thus eliminated. The remaining factors accounted for 24.94%, 23.08%, and 18.82% of the total variance, respectively. The rotated factor matrix with Cronbach’s alphas is shown in Table 2. The final set of items for the COIL is shown in Appendix E. Structural Equation Modeling The models with parameter estimates are shown in Figures 1-3. Fit indices for the four models are presented in Table 3. The single factor model (Figure 1) offers a significantly better fit than the null model, which proposes no relationships among the items. The indices suggest that the fit of the model with three orthogonal factors, three oblique factors, and three oblique factors with one second order factor are not significantly different from each other, but all offer better fit than the single factor model. All correlations among the factors were nonsignificant (see Table 4), indicating that an uncorrelated model (Figure 2) best reflects the data. In the proposed hierarchical model, the paths from the three latent factors to the second order factor are all nonsignificant (Figure 3), further supporting the idea that the uncorrelated factors model offers the best fit. Relationships Between Construction of Identity Location and Demographic/Social Characteristics Analyses were conducted to examine relationships between COIL subscales and demographic characteristics. No correlations were found between age and COIL subscales. There was no relationship found between income and any of the COIL subscales. There was a significant negative correlation between education and constriction, r(154) = -.25, p < .01. Equilibrium was the only subscale for which there was a gender difference, with women reporting higher levels of equilibrium (M = 14.63, SD = 3.36) than men (M = 13.11, SD = 4.00), t(155) = 2.28, p = .02. Analyses were conducted to examine relationships between COIL subscales and social characteristics. Frequency of social contact was significantly correlated with constriction, r(154) = .26, p = .001, such that higher frequency of social encounters was related to lower constriction scores. Number of people the participant reported being close to was also correlated with constriction, r(153) = -.18, p = .03, with more close friends associated with less constriction. Those who reported having one friend in particular to turn to in times of distress scored lower on constriction, t(154) = -2.94, p < .001, and higher on exploration, t(156) = 3.01, p < .001, than

those who said they did not have someone in particular to whom they could turn (constriction: M = 7.95, SD = 3.71 vs. M = 10.30, SD = 4.00; exploration: M = 14.38, SD = 3.59 vs. M = 12.07, SD = 3.82). Religiosity was significantly negatively correlated with exploration, r(155) = -.20, p = .01, such that higher religiosity was related to lower exploration. Discussion The measure assessing location in the cycle of identity construction (the COIL) resulted in three factors, labeled constriction, equilibrium, and exploration. These constructs map well onto Levinson’s (1978) theory of movement between stages and transitions. In particular, once an individual has developed a stable life structure for the first time (Equilibrium), over time that structure becomes increasingly unsatisfactory due to his/her additional life experiences (Constriction), which then stimulates the individual to move into a transition period (Exploration). The original IDEA (Reifman, Arnett & Colwell, 2003), on which the COIL was based, was conceived as a measure of multiple aspects of one’s life phase, that is, emerging adulthood. Thus, the IDEA was designed to result in a total score that indicates to what extent a person experiences being in the stage termed emerging adulthood. In contrast, the COIL was designed to assess at which phase of a three-part cycle an individual is currently located. In this sense, it is more similar to Marcia’s (1966) measure of identity development, which combines scores on two indicators to result in four categories. Marcia’s theory, however, places individuals in one particular category, while the COIL is able to assess the relative degree to which an individual is in each of three phases. The conceptual basis of the COIL involves individuals being in different stages at varying levels across time. The goal of the COIL then, is to examine where an individual is located in the cycle of identity construction, which translates into how she/he scores on each subscale relative to her/his scores on the other subscales. Thus, in practice, it does not make sense to add all scores together for a full-scale total, but rather to arrive at subscale totals for Constriction, Equilibrium, and Exploration. Contrary to expectation, there were no significant associations among the three COIL phase subscales. This indicates that scores on one subscale do not predict scores on the other subscales, or put another way, that being in one phase does not preclude being in another phase. This does not fit with the idea that people move from one phase to another, for which we would

55 expect people to be highest on one subscale and lower on the other two, indicating location in one particular phase. One potential reason for this finding is that this is unique to singles, for whom some parts of self might be perceived to be in different phases at once. This would be consistent with a domain theory, such that phase scores might correlate if broken down into different domains (e.g. relationships versus work). As this study did not examine domains, future studies should look at the relationship between phases across various domains. Another possibility is that women’s lives do not go as neatly through the phases, with more overlap, than men’s lives, and since the majority of participants in this study were women, this complexity was reflected in non-associated phase scores. This result could also support a part of Erikson’s theory, in that people move through stages without necessarily resolving all the tasks of that stage, and thus revisit some of those tasks in later stages. This would mean that work on earlier stages might happen any time later, and could therefore account for overlap between phases. Additionally, research should explore whether there are distinct “types” in the COIL, such that some people score in the moderate range on all three phase measures and some score high on one phase and low on the other two. Such a finding would account for the lack of significant correlation between phases in the group overall, and would mean that there are different ways of moving through the identity construction process. According to Levinson’s theory, development is age-related. However, the current study found no association between age and scores on COIL subscales. One possible reason for this is the restricted range of ages of participants in this study. Future studies should try to validate the measure on a sample with a greater age range, which might help identify the relationship between age and identity construction phase. It is possible that midlife singles, who would be in Levinson’s Settling Down (ages 33-40) or Mid-Life Transition (ages 40-45) experience these phases in a more complex way due to differences among life domains. Studying the COIL across a variety of domains, as Grotevant and Adams (1984) and Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, and Geisinger (1995) have done, may give a more complete picture of identity construction. While Levinson would argue that phases and transitions cross domain boundaries, it is possible that singles experience this differently. The only subscale for which I found a gender difference was equilibrium, on which women reported higher levels of equilibrium than did men. It is difficult to determine whether this indicates a difference in single men’s versus single women’s experiences, whether men and

56 women in this age range are overall in different phases in the identity construction cycle, or whether this is a broader gender difference related to socialization. Some of the findings related to social characteristics may support the last of these explanations. Specifically, results indicate that more frequent social contact, having more close friends, and having a particular confidant are all associated with lower constriction. As women typically have stronger social networks than men, it would make sense that women would score lower on constriction and higher on equilibrium. It is unclear why such a difference in constriction was not found, but may be related to the small number of men in the sample. The area of gender differences should be explored further in future research to understand better the identity construction processes of men and women. Some social characteristics were found to be related to exploration scores. Having a particular person one could turn to in times of distress was associated with higher exploration scores. This might indicate that having social support allowed for greater self-exploration, knowing there was someone to turn to as needed. Greater religiosity was associated with lower exploration scores, suggesting that strong religious convictions may be related to lower tendency to seek new experiences and explore one’s beliefs and identity. In addition to those suggestions discussed above, future research should validate the COIL on other populations. Singles may move through the cycle of identity construction in a different way than non-singles, and this could be studied through comparisons between singles and non- singles. Additionally, as Balistreri et al.’s (1995) Ego Identity Process Questionnaire is the most advanced measure to date of Marcia’s conceptualization of ego identity, future research should compare that measure with the COIL. Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB) Given the complexity of adult development as described previously, assessing adult development is not an easy task. Some theories of development, such as those of Freud and Erikson, came directly out of clinical work with patients. Others arose from real-life observations (e.g. Piaget) or out of intensive interviews with research participants (e.g., Levinson, Baxter-Magolda). Few of these theories have good ways of operationalizing and testing the models they propose. Integrating development into large-scale studies is a difficult task due to the lack of reliable and valid means of measuring development, from almost any perspective. Proponents of Kegan’s theory have developed a measure, but it consists of an

57 intensive interview that demands a great deal of resources, including training of interviewers and participant’s time. Thus, the choice of a measure of adult development for use in this study was a challenging one. Ryff’s (1989) Scales of Psychological well-being were chosen to assess general positive functioning. Despite its name, the constructs that serve as the foundation for and comprise the measure reveal a comprehensive view of adult development, reflected in the term “positive functioning” that is frequently used in Ryff’s writings. Ryff (1989) suggests that her view of psychological well being is related to the Greek idea of eudemonia, which she translates as closer to “realization of one’s true potential” than to “happiness,” as others have defined it. This sense of realizing one’s potential falls more along the lines of development than it does of life satisfaction. We can nearly equate Ryff’s definition of Psychological Well-Being with developmental progress, in some senses of adult development. In fact, Ryff draws on life span developmental perspectives (e.g., Erikson, Buhler, and Neugarten), in addition to positive psychology (e.g. Maslow, Rogers, and Jung) and positive mental health (Jahoda, 1958) in conceptualizing the foundation of the measure. She too criticizes these theories for the lack of “credible assessment procedures” (Ryff, 1989, p. 1070). She thus uses what she sees as the points of convergence of these models to serve as the six core dimensions of her measure: self- acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). Rather than being antecedents of well being, Ryff proposes that aspects such as goals and life purpose are “in themselves, central criteria of psychological well-being” (p. 1078). Keyes, Shmotkin and Ryff found the constructs of SWB and PWB to be correlated but conceptually distinct. While Ryff views developmental progress as integral to well-being, her scales actually measure developmental progress, and thus in this study will be used as predictor variables to measure current developmental level. Results Exploratory Factor Analysis While the Scales of Psychological Well Being have been used in many studies, they were developed from a theoretical framework, and were not subject to factor analysis previously. I performed a principal component analysis on this scale in order to assess for underlying structure and to reduce the complexity of the data. All of the original 84 items were included in the first

58 factor analysis (see Appendix C). Six factors were used in order to assess whether the factors would come out as Ryff (1989) proposed. The resulting six factors were given labels of accomplishment, positive relations with others, missing relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, and personal growth. As this resulted in two factors with conceptual overlap (positive relations with others and missing relations with others), a five factor structure, each with four items, was arrived at, leaving accomplishment, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, and personal growth. The rotated factor matrix is shown in Table 5. These factors accounted for 34.51%, 12.92%, 9.74%, 8.80% and 5.98% of the total variance, respectively. Negative factor loadings indicate the need to recode an item in order to add the scores for a single summed score. Items with negative factor loadings as well as factors worded negatively (Positive Relations with Others, Environmental Mastery, and Autonomy) were recoded so that higher scores reflected greater psychological well-being. Four of the five factors (positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, and personal growth) were comprised solely of items from their respective parent subscale, while one of the factors (accomplishment) was comprised of items from two different parent subscales. Specifically, two of the items in the accomplishment factor were from the original self- acceptance subscale and two were from the original purpose in life subscale. The final set of items for the revised Scales of Psychological Well-Being is shown in Appendix F. Structural Equation Modeling The hierarchical model was hypothesized to offer the best fit, as the theoretical basis for the measure suggests that the subscales come together to measure one overarching construct. Fit indices for the four models are presented in Table 6. As shown, the single factor model (Figure 4) did not fit the data well, but did provide a significant improvement over the null model. The orthogonal five factor model, the oblique five factor model, and the hierarchical model fit the data adequately. The uncorrelated and correlated factor models (Figure 5) offered significantly improved fit over the single factor model. As shown in Table 7, all of the factors were significantly correlated, suggesting the correlated model fits the data well, and as it is consistent with theory, would be chosen over the uncorrelated model. According to the chi-square index, the hierarchical model fit the data significantly less well than the correlated factors model. Other fit indices, however, indicated approximately the same goodness of fit for both models. Based on the desire for parsimony, as well as previous

research and theory with this measure, the hierarchical model (Figure 6) was retained as the best fitting model. The hierarchical model denotes that all of the five well-being domains are first- order factors, whose relationships are explained by a second-order factor termed psychological well-being. This model suggests that the five domains are subscales of one larger scale and can therefore be used either individually or summed together into one scale. This ability to arrive at a single summed score for the scale is an advantage that offered an additional reason for retaining this model. Relationships Between Psychological Well-Being and Demographic/Social Characteristics Analyses were conducted to examine relationships between SPWB and demographic characteristics. No correlations were found between age and any of the SPWB subscales or the scale total. There was a significant positive correlation between accomplishment and income, r(134) = .19, p = .025, and between accomplishment and education, r(136) = .26, p = .003. There was a negative correlation between autonomy and education, r(136) = -.22, p = .010. There was no significant relationship between the SPWB overall total and education. There were significant gender differences on several of the subscales and on the scale total. On the SPWB subscales, women reported higher levels of accomplishment than men, t(136) = 3.34, p < .001; women reported higher levels of positive relationships with others than men, t(137) = 2.01, p = .046; and women reported higher levels of personal growth than men, t(135) = 2.91, p < .001. Women scored higher on overall PWB than men, t(129) = 3.49, p = .001. See Table 8 for means and standard deviations. Analyses were conducted to assess relationships between SPWB subscales and social characteristics. There was a positive relationship between number of serious romantic relationships a participant reported having and personal growth score, r(131) = .23, p = .009. Total SPWB scores also correlated positively with number of serious romantic relationships reported, r(125) = .28, p = .001. Frequency of social contacts was significantly related to three of the subscales and the overall scale: there was a positive correlation between accomplishment and frequency of social contacts, r(136) = .26, p = .002; there was a positive correlation between positive relationships and frequency of getting together socially, r(137) = .56, p < .001; there was a negative relationship between environmental mastery and frequency of social contacts, r(138) = -.18, p = .033; there was a positive relationship between PWB and frequency of social contacts, r(129) = .46, p < .001. There were significant correlations between number of close

60 friends and the positive relationships subscale, r(136) = .33, p < .001 and between number of close friends and overall PWB, r(128) = .21, p = .018. Those who reported having one friend in particular they could turn to in times of distress scored higher on accomplishment, positive relationships, personal growth and overall PWB than those who denied having such a person to confide in (Table 9.) In a comparison of white versus non-white participants, non-whites scored higher on personal growth and overall PWB than whites (Table 10). There were no relationships found between any of the subscales or scale total and number of moves, work hours, religiosity, relationship status, or desire to change one’s relationship status. Discussion Ryff’s original SPWB contained six 14-item factors: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). This structure was based on theory and had not previously been subject to statistical examination. The current study undertook to examine the factor structure of the SPWB and found five, rather than six, main factors, including accomplishment, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, and personal growth. There was much overlap between the original scales and the ones derived through factor analysis, with four of the five scales comprised of items from the original scales with the same label. The factor labeled Positive Relations with Others indicates a sense of having meaningful, satisfying relationships with enough people. This is consistent with part of Ryff’s (1989) description of high scorers on her positive relations with others scale, but misses the elements of friendships skills she describes, e.g., “capable of strong empathy, affection and intimacy” (p. 1072). However, maintaining satisfying friendships could imply the possession of these skills and thus not require explicit measurement. Thus, the four-item factor can be considered an adequate measure of “possession of quality relations with others,” the goal of this subscale (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The Environmental Mastery factor reflects confidence in one’s ability to manage life tasks. The aspect not found here from Ryff’s original definition is the sense of ability to “choose or create contexts suitable to personal needs and values” (p. 1072). However, the four item scale sufficiently measures the main goal of assessing “the capacity to manage effectively one’s life and surrounding world” (Ryff, 1995, p. 720).

The Autonomy subscale suggests differentiation and independence from influence by others, or self-determination. The four items in this subscale seem to capture the full essence of Ryff’s (1989) definition, which includes being “able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways, regulates behavior from within; evaluates self by personal standards” (p. 1072). The Autonomy factor thus offers a good measure of Ryff’s intended construct. The Personal Growth subscale indicates an orientation to or desire for growth opportunities. The items best reflect the aspect “open to new experiences” in Ryff’s description. The factor neglects the idea that one has improved or grown over time, and is not merely open to the idea of doing so. However, openness to challenge and growth opportunities make personal growth a likely possibility, and one could argue that openness to experience itself suggests “changing in ways that reflect more self knowledge and effectiveness” (Ryff, 1989, p. 1072). The Accomplishment subscale is the one subscale that is not comprised of items from only one original subscale, but instead includes two items from Ryff’s original Purpose in Life subscale and two items from the Self-Acceptance subscale. The statements “My aims in life have been more a source of satisfaction than frustration to me” and “I find it satisfying to think about what I have accomplished in life” come from the Purpose in Life scale, and the items “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out” and “In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life” come from the Self-Acceptance scale. The two concepts in these statements are accomplishment and satisfaction, which are distinct from the ideas of purpose and self-acceptance. The main idea of the Purpose in Life subscale was to assess “the belief that one’s life is purposeful and meaningful,” while the Self- Acceptance subscale was intended to measure “positive evaluations of oneself and one’s past life” (Ryff, 1995, p. 720). The Accomplishment subscale does not address the future orientation of purpose in life, but more captures the meaningfulness of one’s life and having achieved desired goals. The satisfaction idea is highly consistent with the concept of self-acceptance, as feeling good about one’s life contains the implication of being happy with oneself. This subscale was found to have a moderate correlation with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (r = .70), reflecting a similar construct of satisfaction. Ryff’s original Self-Acceptance scale also correlated strongly with life satisfaction (r = .73), suggesting the similarity of the original subscale with the new Accomplishment subscale (Ryff, 1989).

In the original scale development process, Ryff (1989) noted the potential problem that the subscales might not be empirically distinct, as the intercorrelations among the scales ranged from .32 to .76. In particular, self-acceptance and environmental mastery had a correlation of .76 and self acceptance and purpose in life had a correlation of .72. Ryff argued that this was not a serious problem with the scale because scale items were required to correlate more strongly with their own scale than any other and subscales showed differential patterns with other measures. The current factor structure, however, appears to address the issue of subscale overlap to some extent, as subscale intercorrelations ranged from .30 to .65, which are still significant but indicate slightly less conceptual overlap. Several variations on the original SPWB have been developed, including one with 9-item scales and one with 3-item scales. Ryff recommends against using the 3-item scales because of the low internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .33 to .56 (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The items in these scales were selected a priori to “maximize theoretical breadth,” and were not developed to create a scale with strong psychometric properties. While it is true that the four item scales developed in the current study do not reflect the full breadth of the original scales, they do capture the essence of each idea, as discussed above, and result in satisfactory internal consistency, with alphas ranging from .73 to .90. The new form of the scale thus appears to be an adequate measure of psychological well-being as Ryff (1989) originally conceptualized it. It should be recognized, however, that the current study involves a select population, so these results may not be generalizable to a broader population. Future studies should seek to determine if the factor structure for this measure found here also emerges in the study of other populations. Ryff (1989) originally designed the SPWB as a counterpoint to satisfaction and affect measures of well being. As mentioned previously, the measure was also intended to tap the idea that psychological well-being would grow out of healthy development. I argue that the SPWB captures many aspects from a broad range of theories of development, and thus may serve as a measure of adult development. Four of the five subscales of the SPWB are clearly linked to Erikson’s tasks of identity, intimacy and generativity. The task of identity versus role confusion involves developing a sense of oneself as distinct from but related to one’s environment. As a task for those of age 13- 18, it means moving out of the pack mentality and culling one’s own voice and perspective from

63 the mass voice of adolescence. This task is reflected in the autonomy subscale, which includes the idea of being one’s own person, without letting others exert undue influences on choices and beliefs. Erikson’s task of intimacy versus isolation involves the idea of creating positive relationships with others, an essential part of development through the ages 19-25. Rather than seeing autonomy and relationships in contrast, Erikson conceptualizes relationships as rooted in a stable identity. Both environmental mastery and accomplishment are contained in the task of generativity versus stagnation (ages 25-55). The environmental mastery component includes the sense of successfully managing life duties, while accomplishment suggests satisfaction with having reached one’s aims. These two subscales capture important parts of this stage, but lack the sense of connecting with future generations. While not an obvious part of Erikson’s theory, personal growth can be thought of as an implicit foundation for development, as progress on developmental tasks requires a willingness to take risks and try new ways of doing and seeing. Kegan (1982) describes a process of growth thorough periods of differentiating from one’s environment in the process of becoming more related to it. He describes inclusion and separation as the two forces of human experiences, and the process of development as one that moves back and forth between these. Kegan suggests that we move through phases of orientation to separation and orientation to inclusion or connection, in a similar manner as described for the COIL. In this study, however, autonomy and positive relations with others were positively correlated, suggesting that in the group of singles studied, autonomy and positive relations with others work together in development. Levinson (1978) describes career and marriage-family as the central components of men’s lives. Environmental mastery and accomplishment both relate to career and the task during the Settling Down period (ages 33-40) of establishing a niche in society and working for advancement. This period also entails moving up the career ladder and speaking more clearly in one’s own voice. This idea of gaining one’s voice is integral to the autonomy element of the SPWB. On the other hand, Levinson argues for the importance of special people in one’s life, particularly the mentor and the “special woman.” While for singles it is not a life partner they find, development for singles appears to include forging personal relationships with others around them. Levinson also discusses the notion of continuing through life to integrate attachment and separation. This might suggest that there is a developmental process of moving toward balance of these forces. While Levinson’s study of women’s development found that

64 women were more oriented toward the home than a life in the outside world, he also stated clearly that women pay the price of limited self-development because of this domestic boundary (1996). This finding lends further weight to the idea of including aspects of personal, relational and occupational life into a measure of development. Finally, the personal growth factor also plays a role in Levinson’s theory, particularly during the move into a transition period, as one reflects on his/her life thus far and considers what changes he/she needs to make; openness to experience would allow one to consider a greater range of possibilities, and thus be more likely to find a more satisfactory structure of living for the next phase of life. Baxter-Magolda’s (1999) theory sets autonomy as a key component in development. The students she followed in her study often came out of college on paths of others’ choosing or guided by others’ influence. Through their 20’s, these students learned to listen to their own hearts, and by the time they turned 30, many had developed an internally driven identity, as reflected in the autonomy subscale of the SPWB. Baxter-Magolda emphasizes that the goal is not complete autonomy, but the development of a genuine self that can relate authentically to others, reflected in the positive relations to others subscale. Baxter-Magolda then, offers a means of understanding concomitant increases in autonomy and personal relationships. Arnett (2000) found that emerging adults identified not life cycle events, but personal qualities, such as making independent decisions and accepting responsibility for oneself, as hallmarks of attaining adult status. The subscales of the SPWB capture the essence of a variety of developmental theories. Not all of the subscales are reflected in every theory, and the factors do not comprise the totality of all of the theories. However, it is clear that the SPWB take an important step in assessing developmental progress across diverse perspectives of development. The SPWB goes beyond an alternative to satisfaction measures to give us a means of gauging adult development. Future studies should consider what important aspects of development are left out of this measure, for instance, the sense of connecting with future generations in Erikson’s theory might be represented. Future research should also compare the SPWB with other developmental measures, as most prior research has compared it to measures of subjective well being. This would help gain a deeper understanding of the relationships among development, happiness, life satisfaction, and other aspects of well-being.

The SPWB were related to some demographic characteristics. Accomplishment was related to income and education, such that higher income and higher level of education were associated with higher Accomplishment scores. This is logical, as income and education are both markers of achievement. There were some gender differences on the scales, with women scoring higher on accomplishment, positive relations, personal growth, and PWB overall, than men. Ryff (1989 also found a gender difference, with women scoring higher on positive relations with others and women’s scores nearly significantly higher on personal growth. It is not surprising that women should score higher than men on positive relations with others, as women are socialized to develop and maintain relationships. As such, women may also be more psychologically minded, and thus more open to experience and personal growth. The higher scores for women on Accomplishment may relate to the lack of gender difference found on income or education. As women’s incomes are typically lower than those of men, this may suggest a much more accomplished sample of women in this study. Additional reasons for the gender difference on Accomplishment may be: stronger relationships with others could lead women to feel more accomplished in their lives; single women at this age could feel more satisfied with their lives than single men of the same age; women and men may judge their accomplishments by different criteria. Other explanations are also possible, and future research could further examine this finding. There was no correlation between any of the subscales or the total score and age. This could be accounted for by the restricted age range in the current study. Relationships between age and PWB have been noted in previous studies (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Keyes, Shmotiking & Ryff, 2002). These studies have typically compared three age groups: young adults, middle aged adults and older adults. Future research should examine more closely whether and how PWB changes with age. The SPWB scores were associated with social characteristics. The number of romantic relationships reported was correlated with personal growth, such that greater number of serious romantic relationships was related to higher personal growth scores. This suggests that people who are more open to new experiences are more likely to be open to trying relationships. A report of higher numbers of romantic relationships was also related to higher overall PWB scores. This result may be surprising in that a stereotype of singles would suggest that singles who have had many serious romantic relationships but have not married would score lower on

66 the scales that indicate positive psychological functioning. Instead, having more romantic relationships seems to indicate greater psychological health for singles. Greater frequency of social contact was associated with higher scores on positive relations with others and accomplishment It would make sense that people who spend more time in social contact would report more satisfying relationships with others. Number of people one feels close to was positively related to positive relations with others and overall PWB. This also makes sense, given the definition of positive relations with others. Those who reported having a confidant they could turn to in times of distress scored higher on accomplishment, positive relations with others, personal growth, and overall PWB than those who said they had no such confidant. While some stereotypes suggest that singles are isolated and cold, it appears that singles in this study exhibited a range of social connections, and that this social support is strongly related to PWB for singles. Future research should further examine the structure of the SPWB in assessments of other groups of singles and non-singles. Researchers should also continue to assess the discriminant validity of the SPWB. Additionally, researchers should continue to examine the relationship between psychological well being and developmental processes, including whether and how these overlap and how they are distinct. In a qualitative study assessing the views of psychological well being and successful aging in middle-aged and older adults, Ryff (1989b) found that participants identified “being a caring, compassionate person and having good relationships with family and friends” as key elements in defining adjustment, maturity, fulfillment and the ideal person (p. 205). This stands in contrast, she explained, to the standard focus on self and inner life (e.g., distress, happiness) that has often been used to evaluate well being. Participants in Ryff’s study also noted accepting change, continued growth, enjoying life and having a sense of humor as vital aspects of positive functioning. These elements should be examined further in research that involves development and well being of singles and non- singles. The SPWB as refined in this study remain true to the key elements of Ryff’s (1989) original measure, while offering a shortened and psychometrically sound alternative. Additionally, the subscales of this measure clearly represent core components of major developmental theories. This revised measure thus offers a new means of studying adult development.

Singlehood Development Scale (SDS) Procedure The process of designing the Singlehood Development Scale began with defining a conceptual model. This model was based on a review of relevant literature (e.g., Schwartzberg et al., 1995; Lewis 1994; Lewis, 2001), interviews with experts, and information collected from focus groups. I examined existing measures for possible items, generated items based directly on theory, and used sentence mapping and content examination. I began by reading carefully through the Schwartzberg et al. and Lewis texts and highlighted terms and phrases that specified tasks the authors believe singles need to perform in order to achieve a successful and satisfying life as a single person. These items constituted a part of the initial item pool. Items were initially categorized based on Lewis’ eight tasks. Information gathered in focus groups (described previously) helped clarify and expand on Lewis’ and Schwartzberg et al.’s theories, which allowed the generation of additional items. From the large bank of items created, I began to narrow the list of items. I conducted cognitive interviews (Sudman, Bradburn & Schwartz, 1996) to assess clarity of directions and items, and how well the items tapped the intended concepts. A colleague read through the item list to check for item clarity. Redundancy of items was not a concern at this point, as the number of items would be further reduced through the factor analysis process. To further assess clarity and conceptual fit, a modified Q-sort was conducted, such that four volunteers sorted each item into the concept to which they believed the item belonged. The sorting options consisted of the original eight categories, plus an “other” category, to recognize that there may be items that are important but do not fit in Lewis’ categories. Following the sort, in addition to the original eight categories, there appeared to be a group consisting of items that assess thoughts and plans about marriage. The items on which volunteers concurred at a minimum level of .75 remained in the item bank. These items were then randomly ordered to create the Singlehood Development Scale. The working version of the Singlehood Development Scale, used for data collection, consisted of 202 items, conceptually divided into 9 categories, including Being Grounded, Basic Needs, Decisions about Children, Intimacy, Sexual Feelings, Grieving, Making Peace with Parents, Preparing for Old Age, Plans/Thoughts about Marriage, and Other (Appendix D). The number of items in each category varied significantly, from 49 items in Being Grounded to 8

68 items each in Basic Needs and Grieving. Making Peace with Parents and Plans/Thoughts about Marriage each were comprised of 36 items, while the remaining categories contained 11-21 items each. While the discrepancy in number of items across category would ordinarily be problematic, it was decided that it would be better to allow items to remain through the data collection process and then use factor analysis procedures to eliminate items in order to create a statistically stronger measure. Items consisted of statements of self-characterization, such as “I have thought about the role I play in my family,” “My home is a place where I feel safe and secure,” and “My career is an important and meaningful part of my life.” Participants then indicated their agreement with each of these statements using a five point scale, ranging from (1)“strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree,” with a neutral (3)“neither agree nor disagree” as the midpoint. A principal component analysis was performed to reduce the complexity of the data and to look for underlying structure of the scale. For the factor analyses, items were sorted into the conceptual categories described above. The set of items for each category then underwent exploratory factor analysis. The measure was broken down into categories, rather than analyzed as a whole, in order to retain variability and breadth of the scale, as principal component analysis cannot recognize hierarchical factors and would thus result in a more limited scale. Results Exploratory Factor Analysis From the original 202 items, 117 were removed from the data set prior to the first factor analysis based on means and variances indicating a non-normal distribution. The factor analyses were conducted using subsets of the 85 item full set based on singlehood development theory. Only factors with α >.70 were retained in these sets. Following the factor analyses of the individual categories, the remaining factors were run together through an additional factor analysis. This final run resulted in ten factors, with four 3-item factors and six 2-item factors. Cronbach’s alpha for the scales ranged from .73 to .90. The rotated factor matrix with Cronbach’s alphas is shown in Table 11. The factors together accounted for 84.26% of the variance in the measure. See Table 12 for the variance accounted for by each factor. Several of the categories generated multiple factors. In the factor analysis of the Being Grounded category, containing 38 items out of the 85 with normal distributions, two main factors were found and were given labels of community and work. In the factor analysis of the Making

Peace with Parents category, comprised of 32 items, two main factors were found and were given labels of positive family relations and child role. In the factor analysis of the Preparing for Old Age category, which started with 17 items with normal distributions, two main factors were found and were given labels of care in old age and avoid thoughts of old age. In the factor analysis of the Plans/Thoughts about Marriage category, three main factors were found and were given labels of attempts to find mate, lack of interest, and marriage is goal. Several of the subscales were found to have only one factor. In the factor analysis of the Sexual Feelings category, with 3 items, one main factor was found and was given a label of sexual fulfillment. The factor analysis of the Intimacy category, with 6 items, resulted in one main factor. In the factor analysis of the Basic Needs category, with 3 items, one factor was found but was removed because α < .60. For the Decisions about Children category, all of the items were removed based on assumptions of normality, so a factor analysis was not run on this category. For the Other category, all but one of the items were removed based on assumptions of normality, so a factor analysis was not run on this category. Items worded negatively (attempts to meet mate, care in old age, avoid thoughts of old age, and child role) were recoded so that higher scores reflected greater singlehood development. The final set of items for the Singlehood Development Scale is shown in Appendix G. Structural Equation Modeling The correlated factors model and the hierarchical model with one second-order factor were expected to provide the best fit, based on theory and the measure development process. Fit indices for the models are presented in Table 13. As shown, the single factor model (Figure 7) offered a significantly better fit than the null model, but still did not fit the data well. The ten- factor models (Figure 8) fit the data adequately. As shown in Table 14, the correlations between the factors ranged from .00 to .88. The hierarchical model (Figure 9) did not converge and could therefore not be evaluated for its fit to the data. The correlated factors model was thus chosen as the preferred model. Relationships Between Singlehood Development and Demographic/Social Characteristics Analyses were conducted to examine relationships between SDS and demographic characteristics. Age was found to correlate negatively with positive family relations, r(128) = - .25, p = .004, indicating that positive family relations decrease with age. Income was significantly related to several of the subscales (see Table 15), such that higher income was

associated with higher work satisfaction, lower importance of sexual need fulfillment, and having less of a child role in one’s family. Higher income was also related to higher overall singlehood development scores. Education was also significantly associated with several subscales (see Table 15), with higher levels of education related to fewer attempts to meet a mate, higher work satisfaction, greater emotional connections, and having less of a child role in one’s family. Higher education was also significantly linked with higher overall singlehood development scores. There were no differences based on racial/ethnic background. There were significant gender differences on several of the SDS subscales. Women reported fewer attempts to meet a mate than did men, t(127) = 4.57, p < .001. Women reported higher levels of worrying about who will care for them when they are old, t(128) = -2.11, p = .037. Women reported less concern with sexual need fulfillment than men did, t(128) = 2.09, p = .038. Women reported more emotional connections than men did, t(128) = 2.39, p = .018. See Table 16 for means and standard deviations. Several life experiences and lifestyle characteristics were related to singlehood development. The number of moves one had made since age 18 was significantly correlated with remaining in a child role in one’s family, r(126) = .18, p = .04, such that feeling more like a child in one’s family was related to fewer moves. Work hours were significantly positively related to work satisfaction, r(128) = .19, p = .029. Religiosity was significantly negatively correlated with lack of interest in marriage, r(127) = -.41, p < .001, positively correlated with less importance of filing sexual needs, r(127) = .21, p = .018, and positively correlated with having an adult role in the family, r(126) = .25, p = .005. Analyses were conducted to assess relationships between SDS subscales and social characteristics. There was a significant correlation between number of romantic relationships reported and community connection, r(124) = .27, p = .002, as well as between number of relationships and sexual need fulfillment, r(124) = -.21, p = .02. Specifically, having had more romantic relationships was related to higher community connection and greater importance of sexual need fulfillment. Number of people one feels really close to was significantly positively correlated with positive family relations, r(127) = .21, p = .02, with emotional connection, r(127) = .31, p < .001, and with singlehood development r(125) = .18, p = .04. Having one’s close friend reciprocate sharing more frequently was associated with higher emotional connection, r(117) = .48, p < .001 and with higher overall singlehood development, r(115) = .19, p = .04.

Frequency of getting together socially with friends was correlated with several subscales, including community connection, work satisfaction, sexual need fulfillment, and emotional connection. More frequent social contact was related to greater community connection, r(128) = .33, p < .001. Getting together with friends more often was related to higher work satisfaction, r(128) = .35, p < .001. Higher frequency of social contact was associated with greater importance of sexual need fulfillment, r(128) = .18, p = .04. Greater social contact frequency was linked to greater emotional connection, r(128) = .54, p < .001. Greater frequency of social contact was also related to greater overall singlehood development, r(126) = .26, p = .003. There were significant differences on the SDS scales between those who would change their relationship status if they could and those who would not. Those who would not change their relationship status if they could reported fewer attempts to meet a mate, t(44.74) = -6.50, p < .001; less interest in marrying, t(128) = -2.90, p = .004; greater work satisfaction t(128) = - 2.22, p = .028; and higher overall singlehood development, t(32.42) = -2.62. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 17. There were also significant differences on SDS scales between those who reported having one person in particular to whom they could turn in times of distress and those who indicated they did not have such a friend. In particular, those who have such a confidant were less interested in marrying, t(24.40) = -2.30, p = .030; less worried about who would care for them in old age, t(128) = -2.66, p = .009; and felt a greater emotional connection to others, t(23.28) = 4.02, p = .001. See Table 18 for means and standard deviations. Discussion The goal of the Singlehood Development Scale was to offer a means to assess never- married singles’ progress on tasks required for a rich, meaningful and satisfying life as a single person. The role these tasks play and their meaning in singles’ lives likely differ from their function in non-singles’ lives. There has been little empirical research conducted prior to this study on singlehood development. The literature on which this measure was based derives from theoretical and clinical work. The primary authors in this area, as discussed previously, are Schwartzberg, Berliner, and Jacob (1995) and Lewis (1994, 1997, 2001). Schwartzberg’s model located singles within a cultural and familial context that affects perceptions of singlehood. The SDS created in this study attempts to capture at least part of this context, with two subscales that directly tap

72 family relations, i.e., positive family relations and child role, and several other subscales that reflect perceptions and attitudes that may be influenced by family beliefs, e.g., lack of interest in marrying and avoid thoughts of old age. Schwartzberg et al. (1995) outlined three specific tasks for singlehood and described the roles these tasks play at different life stages. One of these tasks is accepting singlehood, by which they meant making one’s life meaningful as it currently is, and not putting life on hold until the hoped-for marriage occurs. They did not suggest that singles should give up hope of ever marrying, but advised singles to become comfortable with the structure of their lives as singles instead of fighting singlehood as fetters on their lives. This task is most clearly tapped with the subscale “attempts to meet a mate,” which assesses the amount of energy one puts into the search for a mate. The subscale termed “lack of interest in marrying” evaluates the complement to the attempts subscale, reflecting the desire/intention to marry or lack thereof. The second of Schwartzberg et al.’s (1995) tasks is negotiating an adult role in one’s family, through defining one’s own role as an adult and through talking about singlehood with family members. The subscale “child role” taps this idea, assessing the extent to which one feels trapped in a childlike role in the family, versus how much one has developed an adult role in the family. The point to which this is accomplished is based on an intersection of family dynamics and one’s own positive steps in altering those dynamics. The “positive family relations” subscale also concerns this task, as it reflects one’s closeness with family and one’s capacity for communicating with family. This ability is often necessary to enact an adult role in a family as a single person. The two subscales related to aging, “care in old age” and “avoid thoughts of old age” involve expectations for later life usually rooted in family experiences. The way a family cares for its older members affects how singles approach their own aging process. By establishing an adult role in one’s family, a single person would have greater support in the aging process and great latitude to consider life choices for her/his later years. The third task described by Schwartzberg et al. (1995) is that of creating a fulfilling life through career, friendships, and connections to family and community. The subscales labeled “community connection,” “work satisfaction,” and “friendship” clearly concern this task. “Positive family relations” is also associated with this task, in addition to the prior task related to family role. These subscales assess the extent to which singles have means of connecting with

73 others and areas for meaningful activity and relationships. It is these elements that offer singles the greatest opportunities for creating a rich and purposeful life. There are several aspects of Schwartzberg et al.’s model that are not captured in the SDS. One of these is how each of the three tasks is enacted during different life eras. The SDS is not able to assess how singles move back and forth along the progression of these tasks. It is likely that even having once “accomplished” a task, new life experience may cause one to have further work to do in these areas. Future research should use the SDS to examine movement over time on these tasks. Another aspect that the SDS does not tap well is the context of race, ethnicity and culture. Past research has begun to look at how singles from different cultures navigate the life course, but the current study does not focus on this element. Finally, while Schwartzberg et al. emphasize the need for singles to expand traditional gender roles to include in their lives activities typically thought of as belonging to the other gender (e.g., relationships versus financial planning), this study does not look intensively at gender roles, and the SDS does not explicitly examine gender-related roles and activities. Lewis (1994, 1997, 2001) delineates another set of tasks for singles to work on through the course of their lives. Many of Lewis’ tasks are similar to those of Schwartzberg et al. but Lewis goes a step further to break general tasks into specific goals for singles to accomplish. The SDS subscales of community connections and work satisfaction derive from Lewis’ Grounding category, which she describes as “being settled within yourself and your surroundings” (Lewis, 2001, p. 41). The subscale “friendships” also relates to being grounded, and additionally taps the main element of the Enjoying Intimacy category. The Intimacy category also includes the idea of friendships evolving over time to maintain meaningful relationships as needs and experiences change over time. This aspect is not directly captured by the SDS. The subscale “sexual need fulfillment” is linked to Lewis’ element of sexual feelings, particularly acknowledging them and deciding how to deal with these needs. The SDS subscale taps one side of this, namely the denial or numbing of sexual feelings/needs. Lack of interest in marriage has a similar relationship with Lewis’ Grieving category, by way of denying desire or intention to marry. Lewis suggests instead that singles must grieve for lost plans and dreams in order to move on in life. The “attempts to meet mate” subscale reflects the opposite of lack of interest, in that it captures how important marriage remains for an individual. Inherent in the

74 category “Making peace with Parents” are the SDS subscales involving positive family relationships and developing an adult role in one’s family. Also part of this category for Lewis is the idea of dealing with emotional baggage handed down from one’s family, but this concept is not represented in the SDS. Finally, the subscales care in old age and avoid thoughts of old age are part of Lewis’ “preparing for old age” category, which deals with planning for old age in the areas of lifestyle, friends and family, work and money. Theoretically, considering plans in these areas thoughtfully and calmly would indicate greater singlehood development. However, in this study it appears that not thinking or worrying about getting old is connected with greater development on the other subscales. This may indicate that for the young age group in this study, thinking about old age may mean fear and prediction of dire consequences of not marrying, such that not thinking too much about old age is more functional. In addition, not thinking about old age may be an artifact of limiting the sample to those in good or excellent health. This issue should be studied further in future research. While Lewis grouped her tasks into conceptual categories, these categories do not seem to offer a clear conceptual model of singlehood development. In developing the SDS, it became clear that several of her tasks were vague and overlapped with other tasks and categories, for example, the category of Friendships/Emotional Intimacy and the Grounding task of becoming rooted in a social life. Future research should thus expand on the current study to further clarify the distinctions among singlehood development tasks. The SDS neglects some elements of Lewis’ model. In particular, there are no items that directly relate to Lewis’ task of Basic Daily Needs, which she suggests include security, touch, rituals, and other needs that would be fulfilled by having a partner. There are also no items in the SDS that indicate Decisions about Children, which Lewis sees as a necessary task for singles, though many may see the decision made by default. Future research should examine the role of these tasks in singles’ lives. Additionally, main ideas underlying several of Lewis’ concepts, including decisions about children and sexual feelings, include awareness of the issues and being intentional regarding decisions in these areas, instead of assuming they must be a certain way merely by virtue of one’s single status. Yet these more process-oriented tasks are not reflected in the SDS. Future studies may focus on the process of accomplishing the tasks, as opposed to the extent to which they have been accomplished, as is currently the case for the SDS.

The SDS was related to some demographic characteristics. Age was negatively correlated with positive family relations, indicating that older singles had less positive relationships with their families. This could reflect two different effects, one being that there is a cohort effect with the families of younger singles more open to the idea of singlehood, and the other being that families have more difficulty coping with older singles than they do with younger singles. It seems likely that singlehood has an effect in this correlation, as there seems no other standard issue that would lead to worse relationships with family over time. However, conclusions about changes over time cannot be made based on this cross-sectional data. This finding raises interesting questions about singles and their families, and should be followed up in future studies with longitudinal design. Income and education were related to several subscales. Higher education and higher income were both correlated with greater work satisfaction, which may suggest a circular process, with higher education leading to greater career options and higher income, which in turn leads to greater work satisfaction. In the other direction, being more satisfied with one’s career and finding meaning in it may lead to greater success and higher income. The role that work plays in singles’ lives is likely a critical one, as work is an area where singles may devote great amounts of time and energy, as they find meaning in the avenues available in their lives. Higher income and higher education were also both related to taking a greater adult role in the family. Income and education may provide singles with the signs of responsibility, thus showing family that they have “earned” adult roles. Higher education was related to fewer attempts to meet a mate and greater emotional intimacy, both of which may indicate that education offers singles the foundation for building a meaningful life without a permanent partner. Higher income was also related to lower sexual need fulfillment, but reasons for this are unclear. There were several gender differences on the SDS. While active pursuit of a mate is more associated with traditional male gender roles, the abundance of literature in the popular press addressed to women on how to meet a mate suggests that for midlife singles, both men and women pursue mates, though perhaps this pursuit takes different forms for men and women. In the current study, men reported more attempts to meet a mate. This may suggest that singlehood is more difficult for men, which supports the previous finding that marriage benefits men more than it does women (e.g., Marks, 1996) and that singlehood causes more distress for men than for women (Davies, 1995). Women, however, reported more concern over who will care for them in

76 old age. This may be related to single women caring for older family members and wondering who will care for them. Women reported less concern with sexual need fulfillment and greater level of emotional connection, both of which fit societal gender standards. This study supports previous research suggesting that the experience of singlehood differs for women and men. Future studies should assess these differences further, including how men and women traverse the developmental course of adulthood as singles. Other life elements were also related to SDS scores. Having moved more often since age 18 was related to taking on more of an adult role in one’s family. This could indicate that people who have more of an adult role also have more agency in their lives and feel more comfortable making significant changes in their lives. Higher number of hours worked per week was related to higher work satisfaction. Possible explanations are that greater work satisfaction led to desire to work more or that jobs that required many hours at work led to greater work satisfaction for singles. In reference to the latter, the high income and education of many of the singles in this study suggest that they may have jobs that require a lot of work hours, and thus the relationship between work hours and work satisfaction would be mediated by income and education. It is also possible that singles like jobs that take up more of their time, so that they have less free time to worry about filling; this is a theory that should be investigated further through comparisons between singles and non-singles. Greater level of religiosity was related to greater interest in marrying, less importance of sexual need fulfillment, and having more of an adult role in one’s family. People with strong religious affiliation may feel a moral obligation to marry, though there was no correlation with attempts to meet a mate, suggesting that although people who have stronger religious beliefs or practices may be oriented toward marriage, they are not necessarily being more active than others in seeking a mate. Religion and sex are often at odds, so it is not surprising that those who are more religious would be more likely to say that sexual needs are not important. Religion may give one a greater sense of agency, and might thus lead to having a more adult role in the family. Further studies should more closely examine the relationship between religiosity and singlehood. The SDS scores were associated with social characteristics. Higher number of romantic relationships reported was associated with greater community connection, which could be a result of people more involved in community activities meeting more people and having more opportunities to date. Having had more romantic relationships was also associated with greater

77 importance of sexual needs fulfillment. People who are more interested in fulfilling sexual needs would work harder to have intimate relationships of some kind in which these needs could be met, or people who have been in more relationships may recognize a greater role for fulfillment of sexual needs. Emotional connection was found to relate to several social characteristics that are logically consistent with the subscale intent. Number of people one feels close to was associated with positive family relationships and emotional connection, which fit with the scale definition. Frequency of getting together with friends and having one person to turn to in times of distress were also related to emotional connection in a consistent fashion. Those who reported greater frequency of social contact also reported greater community connection, higher work satisfaction, and greater importance of sexual need fulfillment. This raises the possibility that people with stronger social affiliations find more fulfilling connections to people in a variety of settings, and that such people are more aware of sexual needs. Those who indicated they had a confidant to turn to in times of distress were less interested in marrying and were less worried about who would care for them in old age than people who did not have such a friend to turn to. This suggests that having someone to turn to gives more comfort in feeling connected with others and having someone to help when needed. Those who would change their relationship status if they could reported more attempts to meet a mate, more interest in marrying, and lower work satisfaction than those who would not change their relationship status. People with more intent to marry may place less emphasis on finding a career that is fulfilling, or dissatisfaction with being single may extend into other aspects of life. The Singlehood Development scale appears to cover many of the main ideas in both Schwartzberg et al.’s and Lewis’ developmental guidelines for singles. It offers a means of assessing developmental tasks with particular relevance for singles. Findings from the SDS in this study raise many questions and potential for future research with singles. Chapter 4: Examining Singlehood Development and Well-Being Method Participants Participants for the singlehood well-being study comprised the same sample as that used in the measure development studies described previously. Measures

Well-being Indicators/Outcome Variables. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Deiner, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a commonly-used measure of global life satisfaction that includes five items to which participants respond on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree.” Deiner et al. (1985) reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .87) and good test-retest reliability, with a two-month test-retest correlation coefficient of .82. It was found to have a single underlying factor that accounted for 66% of the variance. The Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is accepted in the area of well-being research as a standard measure of positive and negative affect. The PANAS includes 20 emotion adjectives for which respondents use a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 “very slightly or not at all” to 5 “extremely,” to indicate the extent to which they have experienced each emotion over a given period of time. This study assessed participants’ emotions over “the past few weeks.” This allowed the researcher to examine affect over a period of time that reflects current experience but should be less affected by momentary thoughts and feelings. Watson, Clark and Tellegen have shown the scales to have good internal consistency using this time frame, with Cronbach’s alpha of .87 for both scales, and moderate reliability, with an eight-week test-retest correlation coefficient of .58 for the Positive Affect scale and .48 for the Negative Affect scale. Developmental measures. The Construction of Identity Location (COIL) measure was based on the models of Kegan (1982), Levinson (1978, 1996), Baxter-Magolda (1999) and Arnett (2000) and used the IDEA (Reifman, Arnett & Colwell, 2003) as a basis. As developed in the current study, the COIL consists of 12 items rated from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” The COIL contains three subscales comprised of four items each. These are: (a) constriction, (b) equilibrium, and (c) exploration. Cronbach’s alpha for the scales ranged from .79 to .83. Ryff’s (1989) Scales of Psychological Well-Being were used to assess positive psychological functioning, reflecting overall adult development. As revised in the current study, the Scales of Psychological Well-being consist of 20 items rated from 1 “strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly agree.” The SPWB contains five subscales comprised of four items each. These are: (a) accomplishment, (b) positive relations with others, (c) autonomy, (d) environmental mastery, and (e) personal growth. Cronbach’s alpha for the four-item scales ranged from .73 to .90.

The Singlehood Development Scale (SDS) was developed based on Schwartzberg et al.’s (1995) and Lewis’ (1994, 2001) sets of such tasks for singles across the lifespan. As developed in the current study, the Singlehood Development Scale consists of 24 items rated from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” The SDS contains 10 subscales: 4 subscales with 3 items each and 6 subscales comprised of two items each. These are: (a) Positive Family Relations, (b) Community, (c) Attempts to meet mate, (d) Lack of Interest, (e) Work, (f) Care in Old Age, (g) Sexual Fulfillment, (h) Friendship, (i) Avoid Thinking about Aging, and (j) Child Role. Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales ranged from .73 to .91. Results Social Relationships of Participants The sample reflected a range of social activity and social relationships. Of this group of singles, the majority (72.5%) reported they were not currently dating, while fewer reported dating one or several person(s) casually (12.3%) or dating one person exclusively (15.2%). A large majority (81.3%) reported that they would change their present dating pattern or marital status if they could. Over half of the participants (61.4%) reported getting together socially with friends either once a week or several times per week, while nearly a quarter (20.5%) meet friends socially a few times a month, 4.7% meet socially once a month, and 13.5% get together with friends less than once a month. Participants overall reported an average of 6.08 (SD = 5.22) people in their lives to whom they feel really close, with numbers ranging from 0 to 45. Most participants (83.0%) indicated that they did have one friend in particular to whom they confided or turned to in times of distress. Close to 85% of respondents reported that this friend also shared their problems, suggesting a close mutual relationship for many of the participants. Nearly half (46.8%) of participants reported being most likely to confide in a same-sex close friend and 18.1% stated they would be most likely to confide in a parent, 6.4% would confide in a romantic partner, 6.4% would confide in a sibling, and just a few people (2-12 participants) said they would confide in an opposite sex close friend, clergy, or counselor, while 11.7% said that if they had a serious problem they would keep it to themselves. Respondents reported working an average of 44.29 hours per week (SD = 17.00). Many of the respondents indicated that they were currently seeing (16.4%) or had previously consulted (48.5%) a counselor, psychotherapist, or psychiatrist. Relationships between Demographic and Social Characteristics

Some demographic and social characteristics were related in this group of singles (Table 19). Age was significantly positively related to number of moves since age 18 and number of children, and was negatively correlated with frequency of social contact. Income was positively correlated with education and work hours. Education and work hours were significantly positively related. Hours worked per week was positively correlated with number of moves since age 18. Education was positively correlated with frequency of social contact. Number of serious relationships and number of close friends were both positively correlated with frequency of social contact. Religiosity and city size were not significantly related to any of the other demographic or social characteristics. To examine differences in social characteristics based on race, all participants who reported non-white race categories were grouped together and compared with those who reported white non-Hispanic as their race, due to the small numbers of participants reporting each of the non-white race categories (range from one Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders to 25 Black/African-American/Haitian participants). The only difference in social characteristics based on race was on frequency of social contact, with non-whites indicating greater frequency of getting together with friends than white non-Hispanics, t(168) = 2.22, p = .028. Relationships Between Well-Being Measures and Demographic/Social Characteristics Only participants who completed all of the well-being items were included in analyses of singles’ well-being, N = 154. Women (M = 21.25, SD = 7.47) reported significantly higher life satisfaction than did men (M = 17.50, SD = 7.95), t(152) = 2.60, p =.01. Women (M = 34.92, SD = 8.45) also reported higher positive affect (PA) than men (M = 29.89, SD = 7.36), t(152) = 3.22, p = .002. There were no gender differences found for negative affect (NA). There was no significant relationship between age and any of the well-being measures. There was a significant positive correlation between income and satisfaction with life, r(149) = .31, p<.001. There was a significant negative correlation between income and negative affect, r(149) = -.20, p = .01. There was a significant positive correlation between education and life satisfaction, r(152) = .20, p = .01. There was also a significant correlation between education and positive affect, r(152) = .23, p = .005. There was no relationship between religiosity and any of the well-being measures. A one way analysis of variance evaluating the relationship between positive affect and relationship status was significant, F(2,151) = 4.86, p = .009. Follow up tests using the Tukey HSD test found a significant difference in the means between those who reported they were not

currently dating (M=32.53, SD=8.47) and those who reported dating one person exclusively (M=37.96, SD=7.62), p = .013. Those who would change their relationship status if they could (M = 19.55, SD = 7.61) reported significantly lower life satisfaction than did those who would not change their relationship status (M = 24.11, SD = 7.23), t(152) = -2.89, p = .004. Frequency of social contact was significantly related to life satisfaction, r(152) = .32, p < .001, and to positive affect, r(152) = .31, p < .001, with greater frequency of social contact linked with greater life satisfaction and higher positive affect. The number of people one feels close to was correlated with positive affect, r(151) = .20, p = .014, with more close friends associated with higher positive affect. Those who reported having one friend in particular whom they could turn to in times of distress reported significantly higher satisfaction with life (M=21.10, SD=7.52) than did those who reported not having such a friend (M=17.14, SD=7.94), t(152) = 2.49, p = .014. Those who have such a friend to turn to also reported higher positive affect (M = 34.71, SD = 8.01) than those who have no such friend (M = 29.39, SD = 9.20), t(152) = 3.09, p = .002. Having a friend reciprocate with sharing problems was related to life satisfaction, r(140) = .31, p<.001, and to positive affect, r(140) = .27, p = .001, with greater reciprocity associated with higher life satisfaction and greater positive affect. There were no relationships found between any of the well-being measures and city size, number of moves since age 18, and number of romantic relationships. Prediction of Subjective Well-Being The models tested to determine what factors influenced the criterion variables of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect of the never-married men and women included predictor variables of age, income, education, frequency of social contact, number of people one feels close to, SPWB subscales (accomplishment, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, personal growth), COIL subscales (equilibrium, constriction, exploration), and SDS subscales (positive family relations, community, work, attempts, lack interest in marriage, sexual need fulfillment, avoid thoughts of old age, care in old age, child role, friendship). Gender was controlled by using separate tests of the model for men and women. Stepwise regression analyses were run, with demographic variables, social variables, SPWB subscales, COIL subscales and SDS subscales entered into the model in sequential steps to determine whether each additional set of indicators and which particular indicators in each set increased predictive ability of the model. The sets of variables were ordered based on theory-

82 driven expectations of which variables are “logically, causally, or structurally prior to others” (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 124). Variables that did not meet the .05 significance level of entry into the model were not included. The regression analyses yielded different results for the prediction of life satisfaction for never-married men and women (see Table 20). Accomplishment was removed a priori from the regression analyses for life satisfaction, due to the conceptual overlap, reflected in high correlations between accomplishment and life satisfaction for men r = .90 and for women r = .60. The two-variable model predicting life satisfaction of never-married men included positive relations with others and work satisfaction. The final model accounted for 37.8% of the variance in life satisfaction and was significant, F(2, 19) = 5.78, p = .011. A six-variable model predicting life satisfaction of women included income, age, frequency of social contact, environmental mastery, equilibrium, and avoid thoughts of old age. The final model met criteria for significance, F(6, 75) = 9.36, p < .001, and accounted for 42.8% of the variance in never- married women’s life satisfaction. The regression analyses also produced different results for the prediction of positive affect for never-married men and women (see Table 21). A one-variable model predicting positive affect of men included accomplishment. This model accounted for 33.2% of the variance in positive affect and met criteria for significance, F(1, 20) = 9.94, p = .005. The six- variable model predicting positive affect of women included education, frequency of social contact, accomplishment, personal growth, constriction, and equilibrium. This model accounted for 51.7% of the variance in women’s positive affect, and met criteria for significance, F(6, 75) = 13.41, p < .001. Regression analyses generated different results for the prediction of negative affect for never-married men and women (see Table 22). A three-variable model of men’s negative affect incorporated age, environmental mastery, and avoid thoughts of old age. This model accounted for 66.3% of the variance in men’s negative affect, and met criteria for significance, F(3, 18) = 11.79, p < .001. A two-variable model of women’s negative affect included environmental mastery and equilibrium. This model accounted for 37.4% of the variance in women’s negative affect and met criteria for significance, F(2, 79) = 23.59, p < .001. Structural Equation Modeling

Figure 10 shows the proposed model of adult development and well-being for midlife never-married singles. Correlations between all major constructs are shown in Table 23. Descriptive statistics for all major constructs are shown in Table 24. In SEM, it is recommended that indicators of latent variables not be highly correlated (i.e., rs should be less than .90; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Structural Equation Modeling was used to test hypothesized measurement and structural models that demographic and developmental variables predict subjective well-being of never- married singles. Item scores were used as indicators for their respective latent variables. Prior to running full models, measurement models of subjective well-being were examined (see Figures 11-12). As shown in Figure 11, the paths from all three of the subjective well-being indicators to the second order factor of subjective well-being were significant, which allows the independent factors to be regressed onto the second-order factor of subjective-well being. A series of working models was proposed, based on various combinations of the data, based both on theory and on results of regression analyses (Figures 13-31). As shown in Figures 13-30, most of the models did not converge. The model in Figure 31 did converge. Table 25 shows the standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates and reliabilities at the item level. The CFI of .86 and TLI of .85 are close to the cutoffs of .90 recommended by Hu and Bentler (2000). The RMSEA of .07 is below the recommended cutoff of .08. Results thus indicate that the structural model provided an adequate fit for the data. The paths from the COIL and the SPWB were both significant. Since no other models were found to converge, no comparisons could be made in this study. Discussion Singles’ Well-Being This section involves the core of the study- what contributes to singles’ well being. First, the simple correlations and comparisons are discussed, followed by an examination of the more complex regression results, and finally, a look at the SEM results. Each piece in this section adds depth to our understanding of singles’ well-being. Women in this study reported higher life satisfaction and greater positive affect than men. Previous research offers little with which to compare this result. In a review of variables affecting subjective well-being, Diener (1984) reported that, overall, little difference has been found between men and women on global happiness and life satisfaction. Marks (1996)

84 concluded that singlehood for single men age 53-54 “appears to be even more problematic than for women” (p. 930), but this appears to be based on gender differences in neuroticism and having a non-kin confidant. Davies (1995) found that women reported less psychological distress than men only in the age group of 45-64. There was no gender difference for negative affect in the current study, which is consistent with Davies’ results. The gender differences in life satisfaction and positive affect in the current study are likely mediated by other variables. The relationships found between income and life satisfaction and between education and life satisfaction are consistent with results from previous research (Diener, 1984). Those who are dating one person exclusively were found to report greater positive affect than those who are not dating. This could imply that people who are dating have hope of marrying and are thus happier, that people who are dating one person seriously have more of the relational benefits of marriage, such as having a ready confidant, dependable social plans as well as sexual intimacy, or that dating adds excitement and happiness to life. Note that the difference is found for positive affect alone, and not for life satisfaction, suggesting that relationship status among singles does not impact overall life satisfaction. Several variables related to social activity and relationships were associated with life satisfaction and positive affect. Greater frequency of social contact was related to higher life satisfaction and positive affect. Having more close friends was positively associated with greater positive affect. Those with someone they could turn to in times of distress reported higher life satisfaction and greater positive affect, and the more often this person shared confidences in return, the higher life satisfaction and positive affect. Several of these variables, including having someone to turn to and greater frequency of social contact, are involved in having a steady partner, which was previously described as related to higher positive affect. Thus, dating is a form of social contact with associated social benefits. These results suggest the importance of social connections and friend relationships for singles’ subjective well-being. Previous research has found similar results, with social participation associated with various measures of subjective well-being (see Diener, 1984 for a review). Results from the regression analyses offer a more complex view of the relative importance of demographic, social, and developmental variables for singles’ well-being. Different variables predict well-being of men and women. Almost 38% of the variance in life satisfaction for men was accounted for by positive relations with others and work satisfaction.

This points to two main areas of life that have generally found to be important for singles, namely social life and career. This presents a rather simple equation for part of single men’s life satisfaction, but leaves over 60% of the variance in men’s LS unaccounted for. The picture of women’s life satisfaction is more complex, with higher income, younger age, greater frequency of social activity, greater environmental mastery, greater equilibrium, and not avoiding thoughts of old age contributing to greater life satisfaction. Thus it appears that income may be more important than work satisfaction for single women. Income and work satisfaction were correlated for women, r = .29, but as income thus explains only 8% of the variance in work satisfaction, they appear to be fairly independent. Perhaps due to pay discrimination against women, it is more important for a single woman to afford to meet her needs than to enjoy her work. This finding does not imply work satisfaction is not important for single women, but suggests that it does not account for significant increase in prediction of life satisfaction beyond that accounted for by the first 5 variables included in the regression equation. The results indicate that younger single women are more satisfied with their lives than older single women (within the 35-45 age range). Effects of aging cannot be examined in a cross- sectional study such as this one, but the results may suggest that as women get older and remain single, they become less happy with their life situations, or that there are cohort effects for single women. This result could be mediated by other variables, such as having fewer single friends to spend time with. This and other possible mediators should be examined further in longitudinal studies. Frequency of social contact plays a role in single women’s life satisfaction, as it does for single men. Environmental mastery, or feeling able to keep up with life’s demands, also figured in life satisfaction for the women in this study. Finally, being higher on the equilibrium identity location phase was related to higher life satisfaction. Thus, income, comfort with aging, social activity, and life balance/stability account for approximately 43% of the variance in single womens’ life satisfaction. A third of the variance in single men’s positive affect was accounted for by the one variable accomplishment. This was the only variable that entered into the regression equation for single men with a significant contribution, suggesting that for men, sense of accomplishment and positive feelings are closely linked. For single women, the picture is again more complex. Accomplishment also contributes to positive affect for single women, as do education, social contact, personal growth, constriction and equilibrium. These variables explain half of the

86 variance in women’s positive affect. Willingness to try new things and openness to experience, parts of personal growth, are linked to excitement, interest, activity, attentiveness, etc., all aspects of positive affect. It appears that for women, positive affect is based on current life experiences, while for men, positive affect is based more on previous experiences. Prediction of negative affect involved fairly simple pictures for both single men and women. For men, younger age, difficulty meeting life’s demands and responsibilities, and avoiding thoughts of singlehood in old age all contributed to higher negative affect. These three variables together account for two-thirds of the variance in single men’s negative affect. It thus appears that aging as singles has a differential effect for men and women; for men younger age is linked to higher negative affect, while for women, younger age is linked to higher life satisfaction. This suggests more comfort for men as older singles, though again, these relationships may be mediated by other variables. For women, difficulty coping with life’s demands and identity disequilibrium both contribute to higher negative affect, though these variables account for only 37% of the variance in women’s negative affect. These findings begin to paint a picture of what leads to fulfilling lives for single men and women. The current study is unable to determine whether these patterns of results for always-singles differ from what would be found for married, divorced or widowed persons. Future research should seek to further clarify this issue. The final version of the structural equation model that was tested fit the data adequately and produced statistically significant and substantial relations and path estimates. Paths from both the COIL and SPWB to SWB were significant, with the path from the COIL slightly stronger than that from the SPWB. The fit indices suggested moderately good fit, but given the complexity of the model, a larger sample would likely result in better fit. Previous research has found strong relationships between SPWB and subjective well- being. Keyes, Shmotkin, and Ryff (2002) found a significant correlation between psychological well-being and subjective well-being (r = .84). The results of the current study support this relationship, and add a view of the relative contribution of psychological well-being and construction of identity location to subjective well-being. Little research has been done to examine the relationship between identity status and subjective well-being, particularly with the population in the current study. Location in the cycle of identity construction seems to play an important role in a sense of satisfaction, happiness, and distress.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The current study had several limitations. An internet survey involved obstacles and limitations including the self-selective nature of participation in internet studies. This study took a significant time investment (approximately an hour) for participants, such that certain types of singles might have been more likely to participate than others. Future studies should attempt to limit the time required to complete an online survey, or at least allow people to register and sign in to work on the study at different times. Recruitment efforts were aimed at a broad range of singles’ and other organizations. The number of people who were informed about the study is impossible to determine. Likewise, it is impossible to determine the number of people who were informed about the study and decided not to participate and what made these people different than those who completed the survey. Participation was limited to those who had access to the internet, and thus the study may not have been accessible to people of limited economic means. A number of people began or completed the survey who did not meet participation criteria. It was not a survey that would have much appeal for those to whom it was not relevant. The reason for this participation is unclear. The result of these factors is a limited sample size, which in turn affected various aspects of the study. For the measure development, the limited sample size made it impracticable to divide the sample and run confirmatory analyses on the measures. Further research should be undertaken to explore the structure and reliability of the measures, as well as validate them on different populations. The overall goal of the study was to compare models of subjective well-being for singles. The proposed models were highly complex for this kind of modeling. The sample size limited the type of models that could be run. Future research should collect larger samples and test a broader range of models, such as those that did not converge in the current study, to further explore the factors contributing to singles’ well-being. This study offers a view of what contributes to SWB for singles, and future research should build on this study with larger and more diverse samples to more fully assess the complexity of the picture of singles’ well-being. Future research should also compare more directly singles and non-singles, as the literature has previously focused more on whether non- singles are better off than singles, as opposed to how each population finds happiness and life satisfaction in what is available to them.

Chapter 5: Practical Implications and Conclusions Results from the regression analyses as well as from the focus group study suggest that relational ties, meaningful work, and financial stability are key elements in singles’ well-being. Prior research has also found these factors to play crucial roles in singles’ lives (Cockrum & White, 1985; Lewis & Borders, 1995; Loewenstein et al., 1981). These three elements, while likely important for non-singles as well, play particularly important roles for singles. Relational ties and friendships are especially important for singles, in order to feel connected to others and part of the social community. The focus group and interview participants spoke of the need for close friends, for nurturance, sharing, and assisting with life events, and also noted the challenge of making new friends as a single, particularly after a move. DePaulo and Morris (2005) highlight the close relationships singles develop, including relationships with siblings, close friends, and “intentional communities,” that serve meaningful and fulfilling roles for singles. Financial pressures weigh differently on singles than on non-singles, given the economies of scale they miss by being single as well as legal financial advantages non-singles have, e.g., receiving automatic and untaxed accumulated wealth passed on in a will (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). It appears that while there are some common elements, variables that contribute to subjective well-being differ for men and women. This raises an interesting question of whether there are “his and her singlehoods” in the same vein as Bernard’s (1972) “his and her marriages.” Two elements not captured in the statistical analyses, but highlighted in the focus group discussion and interviews, are the strengths singles feel they have developed through being single, and the pleasure they have taken in having the freedom to make choices for their own lives. These positive qualities of life as a single are often overlooked in both the research on singlehood and in societal views of singles’ lives. It is important that future studies consider what unique strengths singles bring to their lives, and what unique opportunities singles have that contribute to their well-being. This study offers several take-away messages for researchers, clinicians, and singles. All should realize that many singles live satisfying lives and that there is much variety among never married singles in terms of life satisfaction, affect, and desire to marry. For singles Stereotypes of singles are powerful images and expectations both for the way you as singles might expect your lives to be, and for how others perceive you. Part of the goal of this

89 study was to look at how singles do not fit the historical and current stereotypes and to provide counters to them. This section offers you new messages for and images of singles: Benefits of singlehood include freedom and self-direction as well as opportunities for personal development and learning. You have infinite possibilities for growth, learning, and reaching out to new opportunities. Take advantage of the range of possibilities open to you and find ways to increase satisfaction with your life in what you do to fulfill your own dreams and desires. Singles are invested in their communities. Singles participate actively in improving their communities and society as a whole, often dedicating time and energy to working with children or helping others in a variety of ways. Social action, political work, or some other form of service to the community can help build ties with others, foster a sense of belonging to the community, and make a real difference in individual lives and across groups. Never married does not mean cold, unemotional, unsocial or emotionally unavailable. Instead, many singles have valuable friendships and rich social connections with friends, colleagues and family. You may examine the role of relationships in your life and decide how much interaction with others you need and want. People have different needs for inclusion, companionship and affection, as well as time alone. You should try to figure out what is the right balance for you, without feeling a need to meet some imagined standard. There is a rich social world for singles who wish to engage in it. Many singles do not pine for marriage. Marriage may not be something you ever wanted, and this may feel completely comfortable to you, or you may feel a sense that you are supposed to want to marry. However, you may wish to marry and be actively seeking a mate, and this is a choice you are free to make as well. Fairy tales lead us to believe that marriage is the greatest goal in life, but this is not the case, and many singles feel that marriage was not on their list of life priorities. People may assume that you are desperate to marry, and may feel pity or empathy, or may offer to help you find a date. You are free to inform that person of the reality of your desires and goals, whatever they be, and in the process increase others’ understanding of the range of life paths people choose. Singles may experience mixed or conflicting emotions about being single. No matter your education level, your family or friend relationships, or your level of interest in marrying, you likely feel differently about being single at different times. Sometimes you may feel full of

90 inner strength and a sense of accomplishment in your life, while at other times you may feel a sense of isolation, remorse, or sadness. You may even feel several of these at the same time. This is a normal range of feelings, and you need not feel guilt for any of them. Each feeling reflects an aspect of your life as a single person, and as a human being, and has merit to tell you something about your life, or just is part of your experience of your life. You do not have to let anyone tell you how you should feel about being single. If you encounter feelings or emotional swings that you feel are beyond normal, you may wish to consult a therapist or counselor Singles have a wide variety of education levels, jobs, income, and interests. There are singles waiters, professors, doctors and painters. There are singles in all ethnic groups, though singlehood may be treated differently in different cultures. There is no way to define the standard single, as this does not exist. There is as much variety in singles’ lives as there is in any group of people. Singles have diverse life experiences. This diversity is the most important piece to remember, as you may experience singlehood very differently from other singles. If you are single, there is no right or wrong way for you to live your life. You may want to have many friends you see often, or you may choose to spend time occasionally with one or two people. You may decide to buy a house, or be happy renting. You may want to be married, or may not feel like marriage is something you have ever really desired. All of these choices are valid, and all offer the possibility for meaningful, fulfilling lives. Follow what feels right for you. This research also suggests some means of increasing life satisfaction and positive feelings. If you feel you are missing these, finding ways to incorporate one or several could help you feel more fulfilled in your life. Social contact and friendships are especially important for singles, so cultivate relationships where you can. Work satisfaction plays a significant role in singles’ life satisfaction, so assess how you feel about your work situation and make changes where you need to. These two areas appear to make large contributions to singles’ well-being, and are areas where you can make changes in your life to increase your fulfillment. Giving back to the community, or contributing to society, is another activity that can provide both meaningful work and connections to others. Financial stability is also important to singles, with education and income both indicating greater well-being. Remember that as a single, you have many options in your life and many ways to create meaningful relationships and a satisfying life, regardless of stereotypes or others’ expectations.

For clinicians and researchers Clinicians and researchers play a vital role in recasting the image of singles- both in how singles see themselves and how others see them. In the therapy process, the clinician might assist the single person in building skill sets to help him or her realize further potential and satisfaction in life. Therapy with never married singles might involve work on interpersonal relationship skills, career satisfaction, family of origin issues, and/or ability to manage daily life/tasks effectively. Therapy might also include helping singles examine their lives and reach a fuller understanding of the life path they are on, the path they desire, and how these intersect. Therapists should acknowledge the potential for isolation and alienation singles may feel in a society where their life path flows in a direction divergent from the norm. Therapists should realize that not all singles want to marry, and meet each client where she/he is in relation to her/his own wishes. For singles who do want to marry, clinicians might explore the role of marriage and the search for a mate in the single person’s life, including how much of life is “on hold” until finding a mate. For singles who wish not to marry, the therapist may help a single client consider his or her role in family and society, and come to terms with others’ expectations. For some singles, marriage itself is not even on the therapy agenda, and the therapist should not assume that all single clients come to therapy to focus on this issue. Differential experiences by gender should be taken into account, with different emphases on activities and life paths for single men and women. Income and education may be a more important focus or issue for women, due to salary differentials between men and women. Financial constraints may be felt more keenly by single women, and education and income help contribute to life satisfaction for single women. Working on interpersonal relationships in therapy may look different with single men and women. Single men may struggle more in this area, as women benefit from the socialization into a more relationship-oriented culture. Men and women may approach aging as singles differently, and singles at different ages likely experience their singlehood differently. All of these factors must be taken into consideration in the therapy process. Researchers and clinicians should be knowledgeable about and understanding of singles’ diverse lived experiences. Professionals in these fields may never have considered singles in ways other than how singles are commonly perceived. Researchers and clinicians who work in all many subject areas must increase their awareness of their own biases/assumptions about

92 singlehood and marriage. This includes recognizing the effects of one’s cultural beliefs and one’s own marital status. Implicit assumptions and stereotypes of singles so pervasive in society affect these professionals as well, and it is crucial that professionals who provide therapy and conduct research be conscious of their own values, beliefs, and preconceptions regarding singles. It is time for both clinicians and researchers to reconsider how they think about never married singles, and how they can contribute to increased well-being for singles on diverse life paths. Conclusions This study makes several contributions to the literature on marital status and well-being and it makes use of a new technology to reach a marginalized population. By using the internet to collect data, this study offered singles from across the country the opportunity to participate and contribute to greater knowledge about their own often-maligned population. Most importantly, the current study establishes singles’ well-being as worthy of study in its own right, beyond mere comparisons to those who are married. As a large and growing population, and one with increasing awareness as a political constituency, singles merit understanding and assistance in constructing more fulfilling lives. Understanding more about what contributes to singles well- being will likely lead to improvement of singles’ well-being, in addition to providing a more comprehensive and differentiated view of the human condition.

Bibliography Allen, K. R. (1989). Single women/family ties. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Anderson, C., & Stewart, S. (with Dimidjian, S.). (1994). Flying solo: Single women in midlife. New York: W.W.Norton. Archer, S.L. (1985, April). Reflections on earlier life decisions: Implications for adult functioning. In G. R. Adams (Chair), Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: Advances in conceptualization and methodology. Symposium presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Arnett, J. J. (2000). A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. Austrom, D., & Hanel, K. (1985). Psychological issues of single life in Canada: An exploratory study. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8, 12-23. Austrum, D.R. (1984). The consequences of being single. New York: Peter Lang. Bachrach, L.L. (1975). Marital status and mental disorder: An analytical review. (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health, Series D, No. 3). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bakos, S. C. (1985). This wasn't supposed to happen: Single women over 30 talk frankly about their lives. New York: Continuum. Balistreri, E., Busch-Rossnagel, N.A., & Geisinger, K.F. (1995). Development and preliminary validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 179- 192. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Constructing adult identities. Journal of College Student Development, 40(6), 629-644. Bee, H. L. (1987). The journey of adulthood. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Bourne, E. (1978a). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part I. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 223-251. Bourne, E. (1978b). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part II. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 371-392. Brennan, E. M., & Weick, A. (1981). Theories of adult development: Creating a context for practice. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, January, 13-19.

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.). (1989). The changing family life cycle : a framework for family therapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chasteen, A. L. (1994). “The world around me”: The environment and single women. Sex Roles, 31, 309-327. Clausen, J. A. (1986). The life cycle: A sociological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Cockrum, J., & White, P. (1985). Influences on the life satisfaction of never-married men and women. Family Relations, 34, 551-516. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Prublishers. Colarusso, C. A., & Nemiroff, R. A. (1981). Adult development: A new dimension in psychodynamic theory and practice. New York: Plenum. Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family Relations, 40, 97-102. Coontz, S. (1992). The Way We Never Were. New York: BasicBooks. Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Courtenay, B. C. (1994). Are psychological models of adult development still important for the practice of adult education? Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 145-153. Curtis, P. (1988). Why isn't my daughter married?: Daughters tell mothers the real reasons they're single. Los Angeles, CA: Price Stern Sloan, Inc. Davies, L. (1995). A closer look at gender and distress among the never married. Women & Health, 23(2), 13-31. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2005, in press). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Dignan, M. H. (1965). Ego identity and maternal identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 476-483. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1985). Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968-1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Fate, J., & Reil, S. (2002). Make every girl want you: Everything from picking-up girls to having a successful relationship. Arlington, VA: Axcione Publishing. Ferguson, S. J. (2000). Challenging traditional marriage: Never married Chinese American and Japanese American women. Gender and Society, 14, 136-159. Fields, J., & Casper, L. M. (2001). America’s Families and Living Arrangements: Population Characteristics 2000, Current Population Reports, P20-537. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Fitch, C. A., & Ruggles, S. (2000). Historical trends in marriage formation: The United States 1850-1990. In L.J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp.59-88). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Flavell, J.H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, N.J., Van Nostrand. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. Fong, M., & Amatea, E. (1992). Stress and single professional women: An exploration of causal factors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 20-29. Frick, A., Bachtiger, M. T., & Reips, U.-D. (2001). Financial incentives, personal information, and drop out in online studies. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of internet science (pp. 209-219). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science. George, L. K. (1979). The happiness syndrome: Methodological and substantive issues in the study of social-psychological well-being in adulthood. Gerontologist, 19, 210-216. Giele, J. Z., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (Eds.). (1998). Methods of life course research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1988). The changing relationship of marital status to reported happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 317-324.

Goldner, V., Penn, P., Sheinberg, M., & Walker, G. (1990). Love and violence: Gender paradoxes in volatile attachments. Family Process, 29, 343-364. Gordon, T. (1994). Single women: On the margins? Washington Square, NY: New York University Press. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122-131. Gove, W. R., Style, C. B., & Hughes, M. (1990). The effect of marriage on the well-being of adults: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 4-35. Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure to assess ego identity in adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 419-438. Gutmann, D.L. (1969). The country of old men: Cross-cultural studies in the psychology of later life. In W. Donahue (Ed.), Occasional papers in gerontology. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Gutmann, D. L. (1974). Alternatives to disengagement: The old men of the Highland Druze. In R. A. LeVine (Ed.), Culture and personality: Contemporary Readings (pp. 232-245). Chicago: Aldine. Gutmann, D. L. (1977). The cross-cultural perspective: Notes toward a comparative psychology of aging. In J.E. Birren and K. W. Shaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 302-326). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Hammond, M. M. (2003). Sassy, single and satisfied: Secrets to loving the life you’re living. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. Haring, M. J., Okun, M. A., & Stock, W. A. (1984). A quantitative synthesis of literature on work status and subjective well being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 316-324. Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and subjective well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947-953. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Hughes, M., & Gove, W. R. (1981). Living alone, social integration, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 51-75. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books. Johnston, M. W., & Eklund, S. J. (1984). Life-adjustment of the never-married: A review with implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 230-236. Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. (W.S. Dell & C.F. Baynes, Trans.) New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Kaslow, F. (1992). Thirty-plus and not married. In R. B. Wainrib (Ed.), Gender issues across the life cycle. New York: Springer. Kastenbaum, R. (Ed.). (1993). Encyclopedia of adult development. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007- 1022. Kimmel, D. C. (1990). Adulthood and aging: An interdisciplinary, developmental view. New York: Wiley. King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Davison, M. L. (1989). Relationships across developmental domains: A longitudinal study of intellectual, moral, and ego development. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Adult Development, Volume 1, Comparisons and Applications of Developmental Models (pp. 57-72). New York: Praeger. Kohlberg, L. (1973). Continuities in childhood and adult moral development revisited. In P. B. Baltes & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and Socialization. New York: Academic Press. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kroger, J. (2000). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(3), 365-395. Lee, G. R., Seccombe, K., & Shehan, C. L. (1991). Marital status and personal happiness: An analysis of trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 839-844. Lemme, B. H. (2002). Development in adulthood. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Levinson, D. J. (1978). The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Ballantine. Levinson, D. J. (1996). The Seasons of a Woman’s Life. New York: Ballantine. Lewis, K. G. (1994). Single heterosexual women through the life cycle. In M. P. Mirkin (Ed.), Women in Context: Toward a Feminist Reconstruction of Psychotherapy (pp. 170-187). New York: The Guilford Press. Lewis, K. G. (2001). With or without a man: Single women taking control of their lives. Palo Alto, CA: Bull Publishing Company. Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1997). Always single and single again women: A qualitative study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 115-134. Lewis, V. G., & Borders, L. D. (1995). Life satisfaction of single middle-aged professional women. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 94-100. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loewenstein, S. F., Bloch, E. B., Campion, J., Epstein, J. S., Gale, P., & Salvatore, M. (1981). A study of satisfaction and stresses of single women in midlife. Sex Roles, 7, 1127-1141. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J. E. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 145-150. Marcia, J. E. (1995). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graafsma, H. D. Grotevant, & D.J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp.67-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marks, N. (1996). Flying solo at midlife: Gender, marital status, and psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 917-932. Marks, N. F., & Lambert, J. D. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults: Longitudinal effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 652-686. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. Mason, M. (1991). Making our lives our own: A woman’s guide to the six challenges of personal change. New York: HarperCollins. Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence on selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 901-911. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419-461. Mookherjee, H. N. (1997). Marital status, gender, and perception of well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 95-105. Neugarten, B. L. (1968). The awareness of middle age. In B.L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 93-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neugarten, B. L. (1973). Personality change in late life: A developmental perspective. In C. Eisdorfer & M.P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp.311-335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 622-647. O’Brien, M. (1991). Never married older women: The life experience. Social Indicators Research, 24, 301-315. Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R.A. (1984). Health and subjective well- being: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19, 111-132. Pearlin, L. I., & Johnson, J. S. (1977). Marital status, life strains, and depression. American Sociological Review, 42, 704-715. Peterson, N. L. (1981). Our lives for ourselves: women who have never married. New York: Putnam.

100

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703-723). New York: Wiley. Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Rasmussen, J. E. (1964). The relationship of ego identity to psychosocial effectiveness. Psychological Reports, 15, 815-825. Reeves, P. (1999). Psychological Development: Becoming a Person. In M. Clark and R. Caffarella (Eds.), An update on adult development theory: New ways of thinking about life course (pp. 19-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reifman, A., Arnett, J. J, & Colwell, M. J. (2003, August). The IDEA: Inventory of the Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, ON. Reilly, L. (1996). Women living single: Thirty women share their stories of navigating through a married world. Boston: Faber and Faber. Reips, U-D. (2000). The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89-114). San Diego: Academic Press. Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Ryff, C. D. (1989b). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4(2), 195-210. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727. Salkind, N. J. (2004). An introduction to theories of human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saluter, A. F., & Lugaila, T.A. (1996). Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1996, Current Population Reports, P20-496. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

101

Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1, 7-58. Schwartzberg, N., Berliner, K., & Jacob, D. (1995). Single in a married world: A life cycle framework for working with the unmarried adult. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Scott, G., & Smith, L. (1971). Woman Alone. London: Elm Tree Books. Settlage, C. F., Curtis, J., Lozoff, M., Lozoff, M., Silberschatz, G., & Simburg, E. J. (1988). Conceptualizing adult development. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 36, 347-369. Shahan, L. (1981). Living alone & liking it!: A complete guide to living on your own. New York: Stratford Press. Shellenberger, S., & Ross, M. (1996). Adventures in Singlehood: A Road Map for Singles. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Simmons, D. (1970). Development of an objective measure of identity achievement status. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34, 241-244. Simon, B. L. (1987). Never married women. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Smolak, L. (1993). Adult Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spurlock, J. (1990). Women’s Progress: Promises and problems (Chapter 2: Single women, pp. 23-33). New York: Plenum Press. Steele, R. D., & Bellevue, E. F. (1995). How to date young women: For men over 35. Whittier, CA: Steel Balls Press. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwartz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Thomas, R. M. (2000). Comparing theories of child development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

102

Tucker, J. S., Friedman, H. S., Wingard, D. L., & Schwartz, J. E. (1996). Marital history at midlife as a predictor of longevity: Alternative explanations to the protective effect of marriage. Health Psychology, 15, 94-101 Tudge, J. R., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1999). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: Vygotsky's theory, Vol. I. (pp. 311-338). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to Life. Boston: Little, Brown. Veenhoven, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction-research. Social Indicators Research, 37, 1-46. Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32, 483-507. Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341-358. Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson’s theory: Communalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8, 185-208. Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. L. (1990). A life-span perspective on identity formation: Developments in form, function, and process. In P.B. Baltes, D.L. Featherman, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 11). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Waterman, A. S., Geary, P., & Waterman, C. K. (1974). A longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status from the freshman to senior year in college. Developmental Psychology, 10, 387-392. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Wolfe, L. (1993). Women who may never marry: the reasons, realities and opportunities. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Zigler, E., & Gilman, E. (1998). The legacy of Jean Piaget. In G.A. Kimble & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 145-160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

103

Table 1

Breakdown of surveys removed based on limiting criteria Criteria Number of surveys removed Age 192 Health 4 Relationship status 19 Sexual orientation 7 Outside US 13 No data entered 200 Did not complete through demographics 70 No Life Satisfaction data 79 Duplicate surveys 8 Total 592

Total surveys 763 Surveys removed 592 Surveys retained 171

Table 2

Varimax Loadings and Item Description for 12-item Construction of Identity Location Scale

Varimax Loading Item I II III Equilibrium (α=.82) 4. time of stability .89 6. time of leading an organized life .79 7. time of continuity .75 18. time of balance .79

Constriction (α=.83) 11. time of alienation from yourself and the world .75 34. time of passively letting things happen .76 35. time of resignation to your life .84 36. time of stagnation .85

Exploration (α=.79) 2. time of deciding on your own beliefs and values .79 26. time of reappraising your life choices .74 39. time of defining yourself .75 43. time of finding out who you are .88

Table 3 Fit Indices for Exploratory Construction of Identity Location Models Model χ2 df χ2/df χ2 difference CFI TLI/NNFI RMSEA (90% C.I.)

Model 1: Null 713.64 66 10.81 ------Model 2: One factor 509.99 54 9.44 203.65** .30 .14 .24 (.22, .26) Model 3: Uncorrelated Three-Factor 93.27 51 1.83 416.72** .94 .92 .08 (.05, .10) Model 4: Correlated Three-Factor 93.27 51 1.83 .94 .92 .08 (.05, .10) Model 5: Hierarchical 94.44 51 1.85 .93 .91 .08 (.05, .10) Note: df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI= Tucker-Lewis Index; NNFI= Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; **p<.01.

Table 4 Interfactor Correlations for the COIL Three Oblique Factors Model

1 2 3

1. Constriction 1.00 2. Equilibrium -0.10 1.00 3. Exploration 0.07 0.04 1.00 All correlations non significant.

Table 5 Varimax Loadings and Item Description for 20-item Scales of Psychological Well-Being

Varimax Loading Item I II III IV V Accomplishment (α=.90) 6. When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out. .81 42. In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life. -.80 71. My aims in life have been more a source of satisfaction than frustration to me. .84 77. I find it satisfying to think about what I have accomplished in life. .85

Positive Relations with Others (α=.88) 13. I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns. .82 37. I feel like I get a lot out of my friendships. -.71 43. It seems to me that most other people have more friends than I do. .87 61. I often feel as if I’m on the outside looking in when it comes to friendships. .80

Environmental Mastery (α=.78) 9. The demands of everyday life often get me down. .76 27. I often feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities. .86 45. I find it stressful that I can’t keep up with all of the things I have to do each day. .85 63. I get frustrated when trying to plan my daily activities because I never accomplish the things I .57 set out to do.

Autonomy (α=.75) .78 2. Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me. .79 32. I tend to be influenced by people with strong opinions. .61 44. It is more important to me to “fit in” with others than to stand alone on my principles. .73 62. I often change my mind about decisions if my friends or family disagree.

Personal Growth (α=.73) 16. I am the kind of person who likes to give new things a try. .76 22. I don’t want to try new ways of doing things - my life is fine the way it is. -.75 28. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself .73 and the world. 58. I do not enjoy being in new situations that require me to change my old familiar ways of -.69 doing things.

Table 6 Fit Indices for Exploratory Scales of Psychological Well-Being Models Model χ2 df χ2/df χ2 difference CFI TLI/NNFI RMSEA (90% C.I.)

Model 1: Null 1728.47 190 9.10 ------Model 2: One factor 784.91 170 4.62 943.56** .60 .55 .16 (.15 - .17) Model 3: Uncorrelated Five-Factor 307.27 160 1.92 477.64** .90 .89 .08 (.07 - .09) Model 4: Correlated Five-Factor 307.27 160 1.92 477.64** .90 .89 .08 (.07 - .09) Model 5: Hierarchical 322.96 165 1.96 15.69** .90 .88 .08 (.07 - .09) Note: df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI= Tucker-Lewis Index; NNFI= Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; **p<.01.

Table 7 Interfactor Correlations for the SPWB Three Oblique Factors Model

1 2 3 4 5

1. Accomplishment 1.00 2. Positive Family Relations 0.63*** 1.00 3. Environmental Mastery 0.54*** 0.57*** 1.00 4. Autonomy 0.47*** 0.53*** 0.65*** 1.00 5. Personal Growth 0.52*** 0.48*** 0.30** 0.49*** 1.00

*<.05; **<.01; ***<.001

Table 8 Gender difference scores on SPWB

Women Men M SD M SD t

Accomplishment 17.73 5.00 14.28 5.48 3.34** Positive Relationships 17.83 5.35 15.66 5.40 2.01* Personal Growth 19.35 3.22 17.38 3.82 2.91** PWB 76.85 9.12 69.94 11.52 3.49**

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations on SPWB for having someone to turn to in times of distress

Have Confidant Not Have Confidant M SD M SD t

Accomplishment 17.45 4.89 14.18 6.53 2.23* Positive Relationships 18.09 4.90 13.32 6.34 3.98** Personal Growth 19.27 3.16 16.81 4.32 3.09** PWB 76.78 8.89 66.67 12.24 4.48**

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations on SPWB for race

White participants Non-white participants M SD M SD t

Personal Growth 18.45 3.56 20.45 2.62 -2.91** PWB 74.22 10.48 78.62 8.37 -2.08*

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 11 Varimax Loadings and Item Description for 24-item Singlehood Development Scale

Varimax Loadings Item I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Positive Family Relations (α=.91) 111. I feel like my relationship with my parents is/was a .92 strong one. 161. I am able to communicate openly with my parents. .87 162. I am close to my family of origin. .89

Community Investment (α=.88) 81. I am involved in my community. .92 90. I have an investment in making my community a .81 better place. 196. I am active in organizations and community projects. .89

Attempts to Meet Mate (α=.84) 15. Many of my social activities revolve around trying to .80 meet a potential mate. 60. I spend a lot of time thinking about how to meet a .89 potential mate. 72. It is important for me to get out there and look for a .81 mate.

Lack of Interest in Marriage (α=.82) 40. I have never thought much about a wedding for .87 myself. 181. Marriage was never really “on my radar.” .87 195. I have no interest in marrying. .77

Work Satisfaction (α=.90) 169. I am satisfied with the role work plays in my life .93 191. My career gives me a sense of satisfaction. .92

Care in Old Age (α=.84) 83. I have thought about who will take care of me when I .92 am older. 179. I worry about who will take care of me when I am .92 older.

Friendship (α=.86) 172. I have fulfilling emotional connections with others. .86 177. I have a strong supportive friendship network. .90

Sexual Need Fulfillment (α=.79) 98. Filling sexual needs is not very important to me. .90 144. I am not really concerned with sexual feelings. .88

Avoid Thoughts of Old Age (α=.73) 51. I try not to think about how my life will be when I get .83 older. 58. I avoid thinking about being single in later life as .88 much as possible.

Child Role (α=.77) 85. My parents treat me like a child. .80 185. I feel like I am stuck in a child relationship with my .90 parents.

Table 12 Variance accounted for by factors of the SDS

Factor Variance accounted for

1. Positive Family Relations 17.23% 2. Community 16.42% 3. Attempts 11.29% 4. Lack of interest 8.13% 5. Work 7.70% 6. Care in old age 6.48% 7. Sexual Fulfillment 5.01% 8. Friendship 4.36% 9. Avoid aging 4.18% 10. Child role 3.45%

Table 13

Fit Indices for Exploratory Singlehood Development Models Model χ2 df χ2/df χ2 difference CFI TLI/NNFI RMSEA (90% C.I.)

Model 1: Null 1818.62 276 6.59 ------Model 2: One factor 1424.81 252 5.65 393.82** .24 .17 .19 (.18 - .20) Model 3: Uncorrelated Ten-Factor 398.66 213 1.87 1026.15** .88 .84 .08 (.07 - .10) Model 4: Correlated Ten-Factor 398.66 213 1.87 -- .88 .84 .08 (.07 - .10) Model 5: Hierarchical Model did not converge Note: df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI= Tucker-Lewis Index; NNFI= Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; **p<.01.

Table 14 Interfactor Correlations for the SDS Ten Factors Model

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Positive Family Relations 2. Community .03 3. Attempts -.07 -.09 4. Lack of interest -.09 -.16 .26** 5. Work .22* .20* .13 .10 6. Care in old age .12 -.10 .08 .06 -.06 7. Sexual Fulfillment .07 -.16 .28** .18* .17 .10 8. Friendship .35*** . 24** .18* -.05 .29** -.01 .00 9. Avoid aging -.06 .12 .39*** .22* .08 .09 .10 .25** 10. Child role .47*** .11 .06 -.02 .16 .18* .07 .29** .13 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001

Table 15 Correlations of Income and Education with SDS subscales

Income Education

Positive Family Relations -.03 .08 Community connection -.01 .15 Attempts to meet mate .04 .18* Lack interest in marriage .17 .22* Work satisfaction .31** .21* Care in old age -.03 -.05 Sexual need fulfillment .20* -.04 Friendships .13 .17* Avoid thoughts of old age .10 .17 Child role in family .19* .24** SDS .24** .32** ** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 16 SDS gender difference scores

Women Men M SD M SD t

Attempts to meet mate 11.07 3.10 8.10 3.20 4.57** Care in old age 4.78 2.33 5.83 2.64 -2.11* Sexual fulfillment 4.72 2.38 3.73 1.80 2.09* Friendship 8.26 2.07 7.27 1.74 2.39*

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 17 Means and Standard Deviations on SDS for desire to change relationship status if they could

Would change Would not change M SD M SD t

Attempts 9.85 3.30 13.25 1.86 -2.62* Lack interest in marriage 6.02 3.11 8.25 3.46 -6.50** Work 7.33 2.34 8.55 1.76 -2.90** Singlehood Development 77.43 11.82 83.21 8.27 -2.22*

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations on SDS for having someone to turn to in times of distress

Have Confidant Not Have Confidant M SD M SD t

Lack interest in marriage 6.02 2.98 8.14 4.03 -2.30* Care in old age 4.78 2.35 6.29 2.49 -2.66** Friendship 8.41 1.67 6.05 2.60 4.02** ** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 19 Correlations Between Demographic and Social Characteristics

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Age 2. Income .03 3. Education -.12 .20* 4. Number of Moves .17* .07 .15 5. Number of Romantic Relationships -.08 .13 .03 .02 6. Number of Children .18* -.03 -.10 .01 .02 7. Number of close friends -.14 .10 .04 .00 .07 .08 8. Work hours .03 .42** .20** .21** .10 .00 .09 9. Frequency of social contact .22** -.06 -.19* .10 -.20** -.02 -.32** .02 p< .05; **p<.01

Table 20 Regression Analysis for Life Satisfaction of Never-Married Men and Women Criterion Variable Prediction Variable B SE B β

Men’s Life Satisfaction Positive relations with others .48 .30 .31 Work satisfaction 1.27 .59 .42*

Women’s Life Satisfaction Income 1.63 .54 .28** Age -.37 .22 -.17 Frequency of social contact 1.08 .49 .21* Environmental mastery .24 .14 .17 Equilibrium .63 .19 .32** Avoid thoughts of old age .66 .29 .21* ** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 21 Regression Analysis for Positive Affect of Never-Married Men and Women

Criterion Variable Prediction Variable B SE B β

Men’s Positive Affect Accomplishment .72 .23 .58**

Women’s Positive Affect Education .30 .51 .05 Frequency of social contact .73 .50 .12 Accomplishment .50 .16 .31** Personal Growth .65 .24 .24** Constriction -.61 .21 -.26** Equilibrium .53 .21 .24* ** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 22 Regression Analysis for Negative Affect of Never-Married Men and Women

Criterion Variable Prediction Variable B SE B β

Men’s Negative Affect Age -.08 .36 -.04 Environmental Mastery -.93 .26 -.58** Avoid Thoughts of Old Age -1.42 .61 -.36*

Women’s Negative Affect Environmental Mastery -.57 .13 -.42** Equilibrium -.58 .18 -.31** ** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 23 Correlations for the Criterion and Predictor Variables N=105, with missing data excluded listwise Correlations Between All Major Constructs

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. SWB 1. SWLS 2. Positive Affect .55** 3. Negative Affect -.33** -.27** COIL 4. Equilibrium .38** .40** -.33** 5. Constriction -.29** -.49** .41** -.03 6. Exploration .00 .10 .16 .10 .05 SPWB 7. Accomplishment .69** .63** -.38** .38** -.37** .00 8. Positive Relations w/Others .49** .51** -.20* .25** -.42** -.03 .51** 9. Environmental Mastery .39** .29** -.58** .28** -.34** -.21* .39** .39** 10. Autonomy .19 .19 -.14 .00 -.30** -.18 .26** .21* .40** 11. Personal Growth .14 .32** .09 -.21* -.30** .20* .20* .24* -.06 .11 SDS 12. Positive Family Relations .28** .30** -.19 .24* -.16 -.01 .28** .34** .28** .03 13. Community .19 .36** -.01 .16 -.17 .16 .29** .22* .14 .08 14. Attempts .24* .15 -.09 -.04 -.14 -.04 .15 .12 .13 .04 15. Lack Interest .08 -.22* .10 -.23* .13 -.20* -.05 -.12 .07 .02 16. Work .46** .33** -.22* .18 -.18 -.18 .52** .32** .18 -.03 17. Care in Old Age .18 .15 -.24* .27** -.07 -.16 .14 .09 .27** .09 18. Sex .15 .03 -.12 .17 -.10 .06 .07 -.03 .02 .06 19. Friendships .48** .47** -.08 .23* -.32** .01 .50** .82** .29** .24 20. Avoid Thoughts of Old Age .32** .25** -.14 -.02 -.26** -.10 .30** .26** .21* .27 21. Child Role .27** .19* -.25** .05 -.26** -.23* .24* .22* .23* .32 * p< .05; **p<.01

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. SWB 1. SWLS 2. Positive Affect 3. Negative Affect COIL 4. Constriction 5. Equilibrium 6. Exploration SPWB 7. Accomplishment 8. Positive Relations w/Others 9. Environmental Mastery 10. Autonomy 11. Personal Growth SDS 12. Pos. Family Relations .03 13. Community .23* .02 14. Attempts .14 -.04 -.12 15. Lack Interest -.05 -.06 -.16 .26** 16. Work .07 .28** .22* .07 .08 17. Care in Old Age -.06 .15 -.12 .11 .03 -.03 18. Sex -.06 .03 -.18 .24* .16 .14 .12 19. Friendships .21* .36** .23* .16 -.09 .33** .02 .01 20. Avoid Thoughts of Old Age .29** -.06 .10 .35** .23* .02 .11 .10 .23* 21. Child Role .08 .47** .05 -.02 -.02 .13 .21 .00 .26** .14 * p< .05; **p<.01

Table 24 Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum and Maximum Scores for all Major Constructs N Mean SD Minimum Maximum SWB 1. SWLS 168 20.58 7.74 5 35 2. Positive Affect 159 33.82 8.36 10 50 3. Negative Affect 164 20.06 7.19 10 45 COIL 4. Constriction 157 14.28 3.56 4 20 5. Equilibrium 156 8.36 3.85 4 20 6. Exploration 158 13.99 3.72 4 20 SPWB 7. Accomplishment 138 16.93 5.29 4 24 8. Positive Relations w/Others 139 17.33 5.42 4 24 9. Environmental Mastery 140 16.03 4.86 4 24 10. Autonomy 138 17.82 4.28 8 24 11. Personal Growth 137 18.89 3.46 4 24 SDS 12. Pos. Family Relations 132 11.20 3.62 3 15 13. Community 133 10.35 3.28 3 15 14. Attempts 143 13.51 3.38 6 18 15. Lack Interest 134 6.59 3.43 3 15 16. Work 134 7.57 2.29 2 10 17. Care in Old Age 134 7.03 2.40 4 12 18. Sex 135 4.57 2.33 2 10 19. Friendships 134 7.98 2.11 2 10 20. Avoid Thoughts of Age 144 9.19 2.20 4 12 21. Child Role 133 9.85 2.21 4 12

Table 25

Standardized Parameter Estimates for Singles’ Well-Being Model

Factor Loading r2

SWL SWL1 0.89*** 0.79 SWL2 0.80*** 0.65 SWL3 0.88*** 0.78 SWL4 0.78*** 0.62 SWL5 0.62*** 0.39

PA PA1 0.65*** 0.42 PA2 0.69*** 0.47 PA3 0.64*** 0.41 PA4 0.83*** 0.70 PA5 0.81*** 0.66 PA6 0.66*** 0.44 PA7 0.74*** 0.54 PA8 0.78*** 0.61 PA9 0.77*** 0.59 PA10 0.71*** 0.50

NA NA1 0.78*** 0.60 NA2 0.80*** 0.65 NA3 0.55*** 0.30 NA4 0.72*** 0.52 NA5 0.65*** 0.42 NA6 0.65*** 0.43 NA7 0.61*** 0.38 NA8 0.65*** 0.42 NA9 0.61*** 0.38 NA10 0.68*** 0.47

Factor Loading r2

Constriction COIL11 0.65*** 0.43 COIL34 0.77*** 0.59 COIL35 0.82*** 0.67 COIL36 0.79*** 0.62

Equilibrium COIL4 0.84*** 0.71 COIL6 0.82*** 0.67 COIL7 0.80*** 0.64 COIL18 0.78*** 0.60

Exploration COIL2 0.73*** 0.53 COIL26 0.76*** 0.58 COIL39 0.85*** 0.72 COIL43 0.86*** 0.74

Accomplishment SPWB6 0.89*** 0.80 SPWB42 0.91*** 0.83 SPWB71 0.92*** 0.84 SPWB77 0.92*** 0.85

Positive Relationships with Others SPWB13R 0.88*** 0.78 SPWB37 0.90*** 0.81 SPWB43R 0.89*** 0.79 SPWB61R 0.91*** 0.83

Environmental Mastery SPWB9R 0.89*** 0.79 SPWB27R 0.87*** 0.76 SPWB45R 0.87*** 0.75 SPWB63R 0.88*** 0.77

Factor Loading r2

Autonomy SPWB2R 0.78*** 0.61 SPWB32R 0.86*** 0.73 SPWB44R 0.92*** 0.85 SPWB62R 0.87*** 0.76

Personal Growth SPWB16 0.95*** 0.90 SPWB22R 0.89*** 0.80 SPWB28 0.97*** 0.93 SPWB58R 0.82*** 0.67

*<.05; **<.01; ***<.001, R indicates item recoded.

Figure 1: Exploratory COIL Model with 1 variable

COIL 11 COIL 2 r2=.00 r2=.42 .05 ns .65 ns

COIL 34 .10 ns Construction of .58 ns COIL 26 r2=.01 Identity Location r2=.34 Alpha=.69 .09 ns .75 ns

COIL 39 COIL 35 2 2 .87 ns r =.56 r =.01 .04 ns

COIL 36 COIL 43 r2=.76 r2=.00 .00 ns .16 ns .08 ns .11 ns

COIL 4 COIL 6 COIL 7 COIL 18 r2=.00 r2=.01 r2=.03 r2=.01

Exploratory COIL Model Fit statistics: Chi-square (n=149, 54) = 509.99 CFI = .30 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 TLI = .14 RMSEA = .24 (CI90: .22 -.26)

Figure 2. Exploratory COIL Model with 3 correlated variables

COIL 11 r2=.42

.65*** COIL 2 COIL 34 r2=.41 r2=.49 .70*** 0.07 ns .64***

Constriction .58*** COIL 26 .77*** Alpha=.83 Exploration r2=.34 COIL 35 Alpha=.79 r2=.59 .75***

COIL 39 -.10 ns r2=.56 COIL 36 .79*** .04 ns r2=.63 .88*** Equilibrium Alpha=.82 COIL 43 r2=.78

.86*** .72*** .72*** .67*** Exploratory COIL Model COIL 4 COIL 6 COIL 7 COIL 18 Fit statistics: r2=.75 r2=.51 r2=.45 r2=.52 Chi-square (n=149, 51) = 93.27 CFI = .94 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 TLI = .92 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .05 -.10)

Figure 3. Exploratory COIL Model with 3 first order Variables and 1 Second order Variable

COIL 11 Construction of COIL 2 r2=.41 Identity Location r2=.41 .64*** .64***

.20 ns COIL 26 COIL 34 .34 ns r2=.50 .71*** .58*** r2=.34 Constriction 2 r =.04 -.00 ns .77*** COIL 35 Exploration .75*** COIL 39 r2=.60 r2=.12 r2=.56 .79*** .89*** Equilibirum COIL 36 r2=.00 COIL 43 r2=.62 r2=.79 .72*** .86*** .72*** .67*** COIL 4 COIL 18 2 2 r =.74 COIL 6 COIL 7 r =.52 r2=.52 r2=.45

Exploratory COIL Model Fit statistics: Chi-square (n=149, 51) = 94.44 CFI = .93 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 TLI = .91 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .05 -.10)

Figure 4

. Exploratory SPWB Model with 1 Variable .55*** 16 6 .66*** r2=.30 r2=.44 .38*** 22r .75*** r2=.14 42r .54*** r2=.56 .68*** 28 r2=.29 71 .52*** r2=.46 .69*** 58r 2 Psychological r =.27 77 .28** 2 Well-Being r =.48 .61*** Alpha=.88 2r r2=.08 13r .47*** 2 r =.38 .64*** 32r .59*** r2=.22 37 2 .69*** r =.41 44r .56*** r2=.35 43r 2=.48 .76*** .60*** r .51*** .51*** .66*** 62r r2=.32 61r r2=.58 9r 27r 45r 63r Exploratory SPWB Model r2=.36 r2=.26 r2=.26 r2=.43 Fit statistics: Chi-square (n=145, 170) = 784.91 CFI = .60 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001; r indicates item recoded TLI = .55 RMSEA = .16 (CI90: .15 -.17)

Figure 5

.86*** . Exploratory SPWB Model with 5 Variables 16 .78*** r2=.73 .65*** 6 r2=.60 Personal .82*** .88*** 22r Growth r2=.43 Alpha=.73 42r Accomplishment .83*** r2=.67 Alpha=.90 28 .57*** r2=.77

71 58r 2=.69 2 r .85*** r =.32

77 .53*** 2r 2 r =.72 r2=.28 .72*** Autonomy 13r .75*** Alpha=.75 32r .74*** 2 r2=.57 r =.52 .72*** Positive Relations 44r 37 Environmental 2 2 Alpha=.88 .67*** r =.55 r =.51 .84*** Mastery Alpha=.78 62r 43r 2 2 r =.44 r =.71 .79*** .69*** .75*** .87*** .77*** 61r Exploratory SPWB Model r2=.75 9r 27r 45r 63r Fit statistics: r2=.63 r2=.59 r2=.56 r2=.48 Chi-square (n=145, 160) = 307.27 CFI = .90 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001; r indicates item recoded TLI = .89 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .07 -.09)

Figure 6. Exploratory SPWB Model with 5 first order Variables and 1 Second order Variable 16 r2=.74 .86*** 6 2 r =.61 .60*** .65*** 22r .78*** .77*** Psychological r2=.43 Well-Being Personal 42r .83*** Growth .88*** 28 r2=.69 r2=.36 Accomplishment r2=.77 .82*** r2=.59 .57*** 71 58r r2=.68 r2=.32 .84*** .73*** 77 2r r2=.70 .79*** .72*** r2=.27 .52*** .71*** 32r 13r Autonomy r2=.50 2 r =.57 .75*** Environmental r2=.53 .75*** Positive Mastery 44r 2 37 .71*** Relations r =.52 r2=.56 2 r =.51 r2=.63 .84*** .68*** 62r 43r r2=.46 r2=.71 .79*** .77*** .75*** .70*** .87*** Exploratory SPWB Model 61r Fit statistics: 2 r =.75 9r 27r 45r 63r Chi-square (n=145, 165) = 322.96 r2=.63 r2=.59 r2=.56 r2=.48 CFI = .90 TLI = .88 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001; r indicates item recoded RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .07 -.09)

Figure 7 -.14 ns . Exploratory SDS Model with 1 Variable 15 .89*** -.12 ns r2=.02 111 .84*** 60 2=.79 .10 ns r r2=.02 161 .91*** 72 r2=.70 .05 ns r2=.01 162 Singlehood .08 ns .41*** 40 2=.83 Development r r2=.00 -.04 ns .39*** 81 181 2=.01 r r2=.17 .15 ns -.06 ns 90 195 2=.00 r r2=.15 .09 ns .08 ns 196 98 r2=.02 r2=.00 -.02 ns 51 -.57*** r2=.01 144 r2=.01 -.38*** 58 .03 ns 85 r2=.00 r2=.32 .28*** .24** -.07 ns -.10 ns -.10 ns 83 185 2=.00 r r2=.14 179 169 191 172 177 r2=.01 r2=.01 r2=.01 r2=.08 r2=.06 Exploratory SDS Model Fit statistics: Chi-square (n=128, 252) = 1424.81 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 CFI = .24 TLI = .17 RMSEA = .19 (CI90: .18 -.20)

Figure 8 . Exploratory SDS Model with 10 Variables 15 .78*** r2=.62 .91*** 60 111 .90*** Attempts to r2=.83 r2=.81 Meet Mate Positive Alpha=.84 72 .84*** 2 161 Family Relt -.14 ns r =.02 2 r =.70 Alpha=91 .02 ns 40 162 .90*** r2=.00 2 Lack of interest r =.81 .98 ns In marriage 181 Alpha=.82 2 81 .97*** r =.96 Community r2=.93 .79 ns .75*** Alpha=88 195 2 90 r =.62 r2=.56 Sexual Need .79*** .80*** Fulfillment 98 196 Avoid thoughts Alpha=.79 r2=.63 r2=.64 .76*** Of old age Alpha=.73 .92*** 144 51 r2=.85 2=.58 r .88*** .87*** Care in Work Friendship Child Role 85 58 2=.78 Old Age Alpha=.90 Alpha=.86 Alpha=.77 r r2=.75 .68*** Alpha=.84 185 83 .69*** r2=.48 2 .75*** .85*** .94*** r =.49 .94*** -.29*** Exploratory SDS Model 179 Fit statistics: 2 169 191 172 177 r =.08 r2=.56 r2=.88 r2=.72 r2=.88 Chi-square (n=128, 213) = 398.66 CFI = .88 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 TLI = .84 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .07 - .10)

Figure 9

. Exploratory SDS Model with 10 first order Variables and 1 Second order Variable

15 111 Singlehood Development Attempts to 60 161 Positive Family Relt Meet Mate 72 162

40 81 Lack of interest Community In marriage 181 90 195 196 Sexual Need 98 Avoid thoughts Fulfillment 51 Of old age 144 58 85 Care in Work Child Role 83 Friendship Old Age 185 179

169 191 172 177

*This model did not converge.

Figure 10. Theoretical model of adult development and well-being for midlife never married singles.

Stability of developmental status

(COIL)

Developmental Status Gender SES

(Scales of Psychological Well-Being)

Subjective Well-Being

Life Satisfaction Age Positive Affect Negative Affect

Singlehood Development Progress (SDS)

Figure 11 . Exploratory SWB Model with 3 Factors distressed r2=.59

interested .68*** .77*** upset 2 .80*** r =.46 r2=.65

excited .76*** .51*** guilty 2 r2=.58 r =.26 .73*** .75*** scared strong r2=.53 r2=.56 -.28** .63*** .86*** Negative hostile enthusiastic Affect .63*** r2=.40 r2=.74 .79*** Positive Affect .59*** irritable proud r2=.39 2 r =.62 .61*** -.37*** .62*** alert .64*** ashamed r2=.37 .74*** r2=.35 .62*** inspired .79*** r2=.54 Satisfaction nervous With Life r2=.38 determined .74*** r2=.63 .70*** jittery .88*** r2=.38 .62*** attentive .82*** .88*** .79*** r2=.55 .67*** afraid r2=.50 gotten my life is conditions Would active satisfied important change 2 close to of my life r =.45 with life things almost Exploratory well-being Model my ideal excellent 2 2 2 r =.77 I want nothing Fit statistics: r =.78 r =.67 2 r =.63 r2=.39 Chi-square (n=154, 272) = 549.21 CFI = .88 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 TLI = .86 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .07 - .09)

Figure 12. Exploratory SWB Model with 3 First Order Factors and 1 Second-Order Factor

distressed r2=.59 interested r2=.46 .77*** Subjective .68*** upset Well-Being excited .80*** r2=.65 r2=.58 .76*** guilty strong .69*** .51*** r2=.26 r2=.56 .75*** -.40** .86*** enthusiastic .73** scared 2 Positive 2 r =.74 * r =.53 .79*** Affect .92** Ne gative .63*** proud r2=.48 * Affect hostile 2 2 2 r =.62 .61*** r =.16 .63*** r =.40 alert irritable r2=.37 .74*** .59*** r2=.39

inspired .79*** .62*** ashamed r2=.54 r2=.35 Satisfaction determined .74*** With Life nervous r2=.63 r2=.84 .62*** r2=.38

attentive jittery 2 .67*** .70*** 2 r =.55 .88*** .62*** r =.38 .82*** .88*** .79*** active afraid r2=.45 r2=.50 gotten would my life is conditions satisfied important change close to of my life with life things almost my i deal excellent Exploratory well-being Model r2=.77 I want nothing r2=.78 r2=.67 Fit statistics: *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 r2=.63 r2=.39 *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001 Chi-square (n=154, 272) = 549.21 CFI = .88 TLI = .86 RMSEA = .08 (CI90: .07 - .09)

Figure 13

. Singles’ Well Being Model 1

communty friends

posfam careold work lackint constancy constriction child exploration attempts sex

avoidold SDS SWL Education SES Subjective income PA Well-Being

Gender NA

Psychological Well-Being

accomplishment personal growth autonomy positive relations environmental mastery

Model did not converge

Figure 14

. Singles’ Well Being Model 2

cmnty friend

lackint posfam work care child

const sex attempts Stric idexpl avoid SDS ED COIL

income SES SWL Subjective gender Well-Being PA

SPWB NA

persgrth accomp autonomy posrelt envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 15. Singles’ Well Being Model 3

posfam care cmnty friend lackint Stric

const child

work attempts SWL SDS

sex Subjective PA avoid Well-Being NA

SPWB

accomp

posrelt envmast auton pergr

Model did not converge

Figure 16

. Singles’ Well Being Model 4

care posfam lackint cmnty friend

work

attempts Stric const sex

avoid SDS SWL

child COIL Subjective WB PA NA accomp SPWB

posrelt

envmast autonomy persgrth

Model did not converge

Figure 17 . Singles’ Well Being Model 5

communty lackint friends posfam careold child work attempts Equilibrium Constriction sex Exploration

avoidold

ED SES SWL income

gender Subjective PA WB

PsychWB

persgrth

accomp autonomy posrelt envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 18

. Singles’ Well Being Model 6

cmnty care lackint posfam child

friend work attempts Constriction sex Equilibrium avoid SWL Exploration ED COIL income SES Subjective PA WB gender

PsychWB persgrth

autonomy accomp posrelt envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 19 . Singles’ Well Being Model 7

care posfam lackint friend cmnty Constriction child Equilibrium

work SWL attempts

sex Subjective WB PA avoid

PsychWB NA

accomp envmast pergr posrelt auton

Model did not converge

Figure 20 . Singles’ Well Being Model 8

care posfam lackint cmnty friend work Constriction Equilibrium attempts

sex SDS SWL COIL avoid Subjective WB PA child NA

PsychWB accomp

posrelt autonomy persgrth envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 21 . Singles’ Well Being Model 9

lackint friends child communty

work careold posfam Equilibrium sex attempts Constriction Exploration avoidold

ED income SES

gender

Satisfaction PsychWB With Life

accomp

posrelt persgrth envmast autonomy

Model did not converge

Figure 22 . Singles’ Well Being Model 10

posfam lackint cmnty care

child friend attempts work

sex Constriction

Equilibrium avoid

ED Exploration COIL income SES

gender

Satisfaction With Life PsychWB

accomp

persgrth posrelt envmast autonomy

Model did not converge

Figure 23 . Singles’ Well Being Model 11

care posfam Constriction cmnty lackint friend Equilibirum

work child

attempts

sex Satisfaction With Life avoid PsychWB

accomp

posrelt pergr envmast auton

Model did not converge

Figure 24 . Singles’ Well Being Model 12

care lackint posfam posfam cmnty friend Constriction work

attempts Equilibrium SDS sex

avoid COIL Satisfaction with Life PsychWB child

accomp

persgrth posrelt envmast autonomy

Model did not converge

Figure 25 . Singles’ Well Being Model 13

communty lackint friends child

work careold posfam Constriction

Equilibrium sex attempts

Exploration avoidold

SES income Affect PA

gender NA

PsychWB

persgrth accomp autonomy posrelt envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 26 . Singles’ Well Being Model 14

care posfam lackint work cmnty friend child

attempts Constriction sex

avoid Equilibrium

Exploration PA ED COIL SES income Affect

gender

PsychWB NA

accomp envmast autonomy persgrth posrelt

Model did not converge

Figure 27 . Singles’ Well Being Model 15

care posfam lackint cmnty friend Constriction

child Equilibrium

work

attempts

sex Affect PA

avoid NA

PsychWB

accomp posrelt envmast pergr auton

Model did not converge

Figure 28 . Singles’ Well Being Model 16

lackint cmnty care friend posfam Constriction work attempts Equilibrium

sex PA SDS COIL

avoid Affect

child NA PsychWB accomp

autonomy posrelt persgrth envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 29

. Singles’ Well Being Model 17

Equilibirum

Constriction

SWL

Subjective WB PA

PsychWB NA

pergr

accomp auton posrelt envmast

Model did not converge

Figure 30

. Singles’ Well Being Model 18

cmnty care lackint friend

child posfam

SWL work

SDS Subjective attempts WB PA

sex NA

avoid

Model did not converge

Figure 31 . Singles’ Well Being Model 19

Exploration Constancy r2=.51 r2=.53

.73** .71** Constriction .32 ns r2=.10 SWL COIL .09 ns r2=.61 .78** .59

Subjective .57*** PA WB - .34*** .62 r2=.42 -.12 ns PsychWB r2=.38 .31** NA .91*** .91***

Accomp 2 r =.82 .92*** Persgrth .90*** r2=.82 .93***

Autonomy Posrelt Envmast r2=.87 r2=.85 r2=.81

Appendix A

Focus Group Plan

Opening Questions

1. Could you briefly tell the group a little about yourself? What is your first name? 2. Briefly tell us what singlehood means to you.

Part 1: Singlehood tasks When I talk about singles, I will be referring to persons who are heterosexual and have never been married. 1. What kinds of tasks do singles need to accomplish to live fulfilling lives? In particular, what challenges do singles face that married persons do not, in terms of what we might call “growing up”? 2. What does it mean to fulfill a task? Are there various levels or stages in fulfilling them? 3. Researchers have written about some tasks they think singles must accomplish. I’d like to go through these briefly and discuss how big a role you see these tasks playing in your life.