What social lives do single people want? A person-centered approach to identifying profiles of social motives among singles.

Abstract

Despite the worldwide increase in unpartnered individuals (i.e., singles), little research exists to provide a comprehensive understanding of the heterogeneity within this population. In the present research (N = 3,195), we drew on the fundamental social motives framework to provide a theory-based description and understanding of different “types” of single individuals. Across two Western samples (primarily European and American) and one Korean sample (all collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021), we identified three groups of singles with relatively consistent motivational patterns: (a) singles with strong independence motives and little interest in affiliation, mating, or status (i.e., independent profile); (b) singles with great interest in self-protection as well as social connections and status (i.e., socially focused profile); and (c) singles with little interest in self-protection but moderate interest in affiliation (i.e., low safety focus profile). Notably, these profile features did not perfectly replicate in one smaller Western sample collected before the pandemic (particularly the low safety focus profile), highlighting the need to interpret the data with the historical background in mind. Across samples, the independence-oriented group of singles consistently reported greater satisfaction with singlehood compared to other groups. The three groups of singles also showed substantial differences in other affective and behavioral variables (e.g., how they spend their social time). These findings advance the growing body of research on singlehood by offering new theoretical perspectives on different types of singles.

Happily ever after for coupled and single adults: A comparative study using latent profile analysis

“…Some readers may observe that our 6-profile solution for singles differs from the 10profile solution found by Walsh et al, 2022 and the 3-profile solution found by Park et al, 2023. These variations likely stem from the fact that LPA results hinge on the particular indicator variables entered into the model (Ferguson et al, 2020).…”

“…As for Park et al, 2023, the researchers used an entirely different set of social motive indicator variables, which unsurprisingly led to a distinct profile solution. When conducting LPA, researchers pick indicator variables to serve a particular purpose, and different indicators often create different profile solutions (Ferguson, 2009; Spurk et al, 2020).…”

“…When conducting LPA, researchers pick indicator variables to serve a particular purpose, and different indicators often create different profile solutions (Ferguson, 2009; Spurk et al, 2020). In sum, the differences between the current study, Walsh et al (2022), and Park et al (2023) reflect the unique combinations of data, methods, and indicators employed in each study. Our study offers a novel contribution as, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first to explore and compare latent profiles of both single and coupled adults.…”

“…Second, Park et al (2023) used eight fundamental social motive indicators (self-protection, disease avoidance, group affiliation, concerns about being excluded, independence, social status, mate seeking, and kin care) to identify three profiles across three samples that included American, European, and Korean singles (cumulative N = 3,195). The profiles differed as to whether they had (1) strong independence motives, (2) strong social motives (e.g., wanting high social status and not to be excluded), or (3) little interest in self-protection or disease avoidance (i.e., low safety focus), but moderate interest in social connection (e.g., group affiliation, mate seeking).…”

Three methodological approaches to studying singlehood

“…For example, drawing on the fundamental social motives framework, Park, MacDonald, Impett, et al. (2023) identified three groups of singles with relatively consistent motivational patterns across three samples: (a) singles with strong independence motives and little interest in affiliation, mating, or status; (b) singles with considerable interest in self‐protection as well as social connections and status; and (c) singles with little interest in self‐protection or independence but moderate interest in affiliation. These groups differed not only in general well‐being outcomes but also in (self‐reported) behavioral outcomes.…”