That's what happens with men. For women, getting threatening feedback about their own relationship abilities and prospects made them even more insistent that the myths about marriage are true.

Beliefs about marriage and coupling are beliefs that matter to people. Any beliefs that are tied to our world views seem to offer a sense of predictability and control and legitimacy. It is unnerving to have them threatened because then our whole way of thinking about the world seems to be coming undone. We thought we were identifying with a fair and just system, and now someone is trying to tell us that maybe we were wrong all along. Take one of my big-picture beliefs away from me, and I'll cling even more tightly to another. I've got to find my fairness and legitimacy and system justification somewhere.

Nicky asked the key question about this: How can we apply this new research in a way that creates positive social change? Right now, many people find it threatening to believe that single people are doing just fine and that living single is just as good and healthy and meaningful as being married or coupled. How can that threat be eased? How can people be persuaded that a non-disparaging view of single people is totally compatible with a belief in the fairness and goodness of their society?

There is no directly relevant research on this matter. However, Rachel pointed me to some research in which system justification theory was used to try to persuade people to let go of their denial of global warming. (Thanks, Rachel! Reference is at the end.) Maybe we can use that research to glean hints about diffusing beliefs in marital superiority.

In the environmentalism research, the authors first established a link between defending the status quo and resisting environmentalism. They measured defense of the status quo (or "system justification") using a scale with items such as:

• "Most policies serve the greater good."
• "In general, the American political system operates as it should."
• "Society is set up so that people usually get what they deserve."

They measured environmental attitudes with items such as:

• "The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations."
• "The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them."
• Denial of: "If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major environmental catastrophe."

As the authors expected, people who were especially likely to defend the status quo (agreeing with the first set of statements) were also likely to say that we don't need to worry about global warming or any other potential ecological disasters. All of those beliefs seemed to fit together into one world view. It is, in a way, a patriotic perspective. America, this view maintains, is a fair and just society and its people and practices are not endangering the environment.

The authors' idea was very simple: Reframe environmentalism as patriotic, as the American way.

In the key study, the authors identified people who were especially likely to defend the status quo and people who were much less likely to do so. Then half of the people in each group read a passage that included these sentences:

"Being pro-environmental allows us to protect and preserve the American way of life. It is patriotic to conserve the country's natural resources."

That should be just too simple to work, but it did. Not for the group who did not score high on system justification - they did not need to be persuaded. But for those who endorsed the legitimacy of the status quo, the patriotic reframing mattered a lot. When those people read that environmentalism would protect and preserve the American way of life, they later expressed more pro-environmental intentions than those who did not read the patriotic reframing. For example, they said that they intended to use more recyclable and more reusable products. They even signed more pro-environmental petitions, such as one to the governor urging the creation of more green jobs.

Is there a lesson to be learned from this research on system justification and environmentalism? Are there ways to reframe beliefs about marriage and single life, such that singlism is diffused and fairness is embraced?

Post your suggestions to the comments section. If I can add anything to your ideas, I will. Maybe we will inspire some professors or graduate students to put our hypotheses to the empirical test.

References:

Day, M. V., Kay, A. C., Holmes, J. C., & Napier, J. L. (in press). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of 'system-sanctioned' change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326-338.