- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Single people don't have "issues" with attachment. That's the conclusion of a just-published study. Attachment figures are people we like to be near in times of need, and who provide comfort and support in times of stress. Single people have about the same number of such people as coupled people do. Single people are no more likely than coupled people to feel anxious about rejection or abandonment. They are also no more likely to try to avoid intimacy or interdependence. Read More
Other findings?
Hi Bella,
I've followed your blog and am appreciative of your efforts to identify and address singlism out there. I also think attachment research has a lot to offer, and was excited to learn about this new study.
I think your post is great, and there is something that I feel has been left out (though you may plan to address this in your follow-up post). I have not read the full article (no full-text access to it at the moment), but the abstract seems to clearly state:
"...although compared to coupled participants, [single participants] reported higher levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, sexual dissatisfaction, and troubled childhood relationships with parents."
Their findings seem to suggest that long-term singles don't manifest attachment insecurities, but the findings also seem to run counter to the "conclusion that plenty of single people may be doing just fine."
Any thoughts on this part?
will address it
delusional happy singles
Many single people may be doing just fine despite the condition of their singleness, but could be doing a lot better if they were partnered.
Singleness, regardless of what singles adamantly proclaim, is not the optimal mode of living -- it's just crude survival. Humans innately require this particular form of attachment -- what varies is the amount of attachment, not the type needed.
Most singles just successfully manage their condition, shifting the weight of importance to other distractions or occupations in order to gain some semblance of happiness. It's just delusion as a coping mechanism.
And I'm speaking as a single.
Speak for yourself
"Humans innately require" is the argument that people use when they disapprove of someone who differs from the norm. It implies that there is only one right way to do things.
That's not something that I believe; given the great diversity of people out there there are multiple potential paths.
But a lot of people find that diversity threatening...
keep dreaming...
I don't find diversity threatening; I just think that life should be lived in such way as to maximise fulfillment. There are some modes of living that are conducive to more happiness, and being single (however liberating in the short term) is ultimately unsatisfying.
So what I'm saying is not that singledom is wrong, it's just not the best possible option on the continuum of social living. Even if you're predisposed to enjoy solitude, being partnered adds another dimension.
It's akin to the added sensory experience a deaf person enjoys upon receiving a cochlear implant. It's an optional extra, not a substitute.
A partner as an implant?
Interesting that you compare having a partner to getting an implant... Maybe you didn't realize how odd your comparison would sound...
Either way, what are you basing your contention on that being partnered is the "best possible option on the continuum of social living?" The research that such a claim might be based on has been thoroughly debunked not just by DePaulo but also by some researchers who worked on the original studies, like Ed Diener.
And the best way to maximize fulfillment in life is to enjoy what you have instead of waiting for a (perceived) panacea like a partner. You might enjoy reading Karen Gail Lewis' "With or Without a Man." She argues that, although it can be true that a partner adds another dimension (whether that's good or bad is another topic), waiting for one or making your happiness/fulfillment dependent on finding one is the surest way to misery.
Best possible option for everyone?
I fail to see how someone "predisposed to solitude" is supposed to feel more fulfillment when coupled.
You seem to have decided, a priori, that it's better to be coupled than single.
It would seem to me that, given how diverse people are, some would be happier not coupled.
What's more...
...the "you're missing something" argument can be used to support virtually anything, from scrapbooking to skydiving to joining the Marine Corps.
Alan and Rachel, excellent
Alan and Rachel, excellent points.
Antisingle, perhaps you are unhappy being single or think you would be happiER coupled, and that's fine. But to say it is necessarily true for all humans is really off-base. I don't feel more fulfilled when I am in a relationship. In fact, in my last relationship I was so strapped for time having devote some of my scant free time to my partner, that I couldn't do some of the things that I find personally fulfilling. I've felt I am "missing something" when I've been in committed relationships. If you are missing something in your own life, another person is not going to fill that gap.
And on a more abstract level, a lot of singles just don't get all that much out of another person. I have been in relationships where I've cared deeply for my partner, but he didn't change who I am myself. I don't believe that two people ever "become one" as so many love stories suggest. I believe that I am the only person who can ever fully understand myself, and I will never fully understand another human. We are too complex of beings and there is too much in our minds. And besides that people change, so even if people are almost completely in sync at one point in time, they might not be a year or ten later.
You can see this in friendships and other relationships, and there is no reason to believe that a "romantic" relationship should behave any differently- the only factor that differentiates a romantic partner from your closest friend or family member is sex, and I don't believe that sex is enough to make one type of relationship more "fulfilling" than another.
Singles get labeled
Thank you for bringing attention to this article. Interestingly, I feel that attachment issues don't necessarily have to do with an individual's choice of lifestyle, but rather how their thoughts and feelings around their choices. I know many married couples who exhibit unsecured attachment styles. So single people don't need to be "singled out".
about evenhandedness
Hello, just thought I'd drop in and leave a comment in defense of our study - I do not feel that we were being unfair to single people in our study, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. The three of us tried to report our findings as objectively as possible...but perhaps "singleism" is even more insidious than we suspected and entered into our choice of words. Again, I'm sorry if it came across that way - it certainly wasn't intentional.
Post new comment