Singlehood in Europe: Rates and Factors Associated with Happiness [1 ed.] 9783737015325, 9783847115328

Citation preview

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Katarzyna Adamczyk / Radosław Trepanowski

Singlehood in Europe: Rates and Factors Associated with Happiness

With 9 figures

V&R unipress

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available online: https://dnb.de. Printed with friendly support of the National Science Centre, Poland. © 2023 by Brill | V&R unipress, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, 37079 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Unless otherwise stated, this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 (see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/4.0/) and can be accessed under DOI 10.14220/9783737015325. Any use in cases other than those permitted by this license requires the prior written permission from the publisher. Cover image: © Jan Marciszonek Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-7370-1532-5

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

To my husband Paweł and my son Marcin, who always allow me to pursue my scientific dreams. Katarzyna Adamczyk

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

‘Given the increasing numbers of persons who are single …, there is a need to investigate the correlates and outcomes of singlehood in future research, in diverse countries and cultures.’ Mehta, Arnett, and Nelson (2020)

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Overview of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

Chapter 1. Singles in numbers . . . . . . . . . . Defining singlehood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The shares of single individuals . . . . . . . . The sociodemographic profile of single people Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Living with children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 22 26 27 28 30 34 35 37 39

Chapter 2. Subjective well-being and general health of single people . . . Happiness of singles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social life of singles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . Having people to discuss intimate and personal matters with . . . . . . Participating in social activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General health of single people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjective health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impediments to daily activities from illness/disability/infirmity/mental health issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 42 44 46 48 52 54 55

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

56 58

10

Contents

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

61 63 65 67 68 70

Chapter 4. Religion in the life of single people . . . . . . . . . . Belonging to a religion or denomination . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of specific religions or denominations . . . . . . Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of attending religious services other than on special occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of praying apart from praying in religious services . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

71 72 74 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 83 85

Chapter 5. Predictors of single people’s happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociodemographic variables as predictors of single people’s happiness: Testing of null model and five sociodemographic models . . . . . . . . Social relationship- and health-related variables as predictors of single people’s happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic human values as predictors of single people’s happiness . . . . . Religion variables as predictors of single peoples’ happiness . . . . . . The comprehensive model of predictors of single peoples’ happiness . . Sociodemographics and single people’s happiness . . . . . . . . . . . Social relationships and health and single people’s happiness . . . . . Basic human values and health and single people’s happiness . . . . . Religion and single people’s happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

90 92 93 95 97 97 99 100 101

Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

Chapter 3. Human values in the life of single people Self-enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-transcendence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Openness to change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

. . . . . .

88

Acknowledgments

The impulse to elaborate the current monograph was provided by our research performed under the scope of grant UMO-2019/34/E/HS6/00164 (registration number: 2019/34/E/HS6/00164) funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, awarded to Katarzyna Adamczyk. This grant has been implemented since 2020 and is aimed at the investigation of singlehood captured in terms of ambiguous loss theory and its mental health outcomes. Specifically, the interview-based research with 40 Polish never-married single adults enabled us to demonstrate that never-married single individuals represent a very unique and heterogeneous subgroup of single individuals who do not experience only negative health outcomes as a function of single status. In contrast, some of our single interviewees also lead an authentic and happy single life despite the prevalent social conviction that single people are lonely, miserable and unhappy (DePaulo & Morris, 2005, 2006). Our exploratory interview-based research also revealed that in the life of some single individuals, religion may play an important role, for instance, by fostering positive or negative coping with single status. Finally, in an online quantitative survey, single individuals provided us with feedback after completion of the survey. Among various comments, there were repeated comments that ‘It is good that somebody is investigating singlehood’, ‘This study is very needed’ and ‘Being single does not mean that single people think only about the lack of a lifetime partner’. Finally, we also asked ourselves whether the picture of singlehood in Poland that we discovered through grant UMO-2019/34/E/HS6/00164 is similar to or different from singlehood in other countries. The questions and considerations formulated in grant UMO-2019/34/E/HS6/00164 prompted us to use the large datasets collected in the framework of the European Social Survey (ESS) over a period of 16 years (2002–2018) to more broadly explore various factors associated with singlehood in Europe. We utilized these data to depict the phenomenon of singlehood across European countries in terms of rates and statistics and factors associated with single people’s happiness. The ESS data were ela-

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

12

Acknowledgments

borated with reference to the results and considerations developed under the framework of the project UMO-2019/34/E/HS6/00164. *** The publication of the current book in open access form was possible thanks entirely to the financial funding received from Professor Marek Kwiek, director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (IAS) (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´), from the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´ program ‘Research University – Excellence Initiative’ (decision number: 912/12/POB5/0002), and from Professor Mariusz Urban´ski, dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´). We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Marek Kwiek and Professor Mariusz Urban´ski for their financial support, which allowed us to achieve our dream and make this monograph freely available to all readers. We are also very grateful to Professor Przemysław Wojtaszek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan vice-rector for research projects and doctoral students, for his support and encouragement in searching for financial resources. We would also like to thank Dr. Marcin Byczyn´ski for his support in regard to all the administrative issues related to publishing the book. We also thank MarieCarolin Vondracek from V&R unipress | Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for her great and kind support during the publishing process. Last but not least, we would like to warmly thank Professor Yuthika Girme from Simon Fraser University (Canada) for reviewing our book and providing us with numerous constructive and valuable comments that enabled us to significantly improve the monograph. The proofreading of the current book was financed by the funding received in the contest ‘Monographs’ under the scope of the activity of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (IAS) (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´) through the framework of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´ program ‘Research University – Excellence Initiative’ (decision number: 043/08/POB5/0006).

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Introduction ‘Single people are rarely examined in their own right’ Oh, Chopik, and Lucas (2021)

The contemporary world is characterized by changeability and complexity (Szempruch & Potyrała, 2022). These features are also evident in the domain of the modern context of intimate relationships, which is now characterized by the existence of multiple relationship alternatives (Bühler & Nikitin, 2020), such as cohabitation (Perelli-Harris et al., 2019; Smock & Schwartz, 2020), ‘nonresident partnership’ (known as ‘living apart together’ or LAT) (Pasteels et al., 2017), singlehood (Adamczyk, 2021; Girme et al., 2022; MacDonald & Pepping, 2019; Kislev, 2020a; van den Berg & Verbakel, 2022), and single parenthood (Bernardini et al., 2018; Van Gasse & Mortelmans, 2020). The current transformations in the domain of the forms of marital and family life also include the rising age of first partnership, frequency of divorces and separations (Bergström et al., 2019), and frequency of repartnering and variety in partnering trajectories (Di Nallo, 2019). Rising shares of people living single have been observed in the United States of America and Canada and in many European and Asian countries (Mehta et al., 2020). For instance, in the USA in the last 40 years, the percentage of unmarried individuals (divorced, widowed, or never married) has been shown to have increased from 28% to approximately 44% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). In turn, almost two-thirds of solo dwellers in Canada are not involved in a serious relationship (Tang et al., 2019). In regard to Europe, van den Berg and Verbakel (2022) have recently demonstrated using ESS data that the share of young women remaining single after leaving home increased by 11 percentage points from 41% to 52%, whereas among young men, there was an increase of three percentage points from 59% to 62%. In the literature, numerous factors are considered determinants of the increasing number of single individuals (see van der Berg and Verbakel 2022 for a review). For instance, the sociological literature indicates the following major reasons for the increasing trends in singlehood: 1) the Second Demographic Transition (SDT), which refers to, among other things, the shift from large to small families and transformations in the sphere of values, patterns and norms, among which autonomy, self-direction, reliance on oneself and privacy are now

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

14

Introduction

the core values (Duch-Krzystoszek, 1998; Slany, 2001; van den Berg and Verbakel 2022; Z˙urek 2008); 2) transformations in the traditional roles of men and women (Duch-Krzystoszek, 1998); 3) so-called delay syndrome (Slany, 2006), which manifests in a decline in the intensity of marriage, the occurrence of alternative forms of life (including single life), the postponement of procreative tasks and the extension (even to the age of 28) of education, which prolongs children’s dependence on parents (Slany, 2006); 4) the contraceptive and sexual revolution that allows the postponement of relationship establishment and childbearing and, in connection with higher acceptance and prevalence of sex outside of marriage and premarital sex, enables people to remain single for longer periods (van den Berg and Verbakel, 2022). These transformations have also been accompanied by economic changes promoting the attainment of economic and residential independence (Z˙urek, 2008). This is related to the availability of alternatives such that marriage and the establishment of a family are no longer the only possible lifestyle today, as an increasing number of people, especially young adults, seeking freedom and autonomy, choose to leave the family home and not take on marital obligations (Fitzpatrick et al. 2014; Z˙urek, 2008). The increase in the shares of single individuals across many countries has been accompanied by unflagging interest in singlehood among researchers representing diverse disciplines. In 2004, Roseneil and Budgeon postulated that room should be made for single adults in sociology and indicated a need to ‘“decentre the family” and the heterosexual couple in our intellectual imaginaries’ (p. 135). The authors also emphasized that ‘there is a need for research focusing on the cultures of intimacy and care inhabited by those living at the cutting edge of social change’ (Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004, p. 135). Among this group, Roseneil and Budgeon (2004) counted ‘adults who are not living with a partner’ (p. 135). One year later, a similar proposition was made by two psychologists, DePaulo and Morris (2005), who published a paper entitled ‘Singles in Society and in Science’‘in hopes of starting a conversation about people who are single and their place in society and in science’ (p. 57). Indeed, this seminal article opened a broad scientific discussion of the subject of singlehood in psychology and other disciplines. Seventeen years after the publication of this article by DePaulo and Morris (2005), we may ask what has changed in the domain of research on singlehood. At first glance, the quick answer might seem to be ‘a great deal’. For instance, in recent years, we have witnessed an intensification of singlehood research and new approaches to singlehood. MacDonald & Pepping (2019) and Pepping and colleagues (2018) developed an attachment-related theoretical model of longterm singlehood, while Apostolou (2017) proposed an evolutionary perspective of singlehood. Furthermore, in singlehood research, there has been a significant shift from the prior concentration on negative outcomes of singlehood (e. g.,

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

15

Introduction

loneliness) to a focus on the positive outcomes of singlehood (e. g., satisfaction with single status) in connection with searching for factors mitigating the adverse outcomes associated with singlehood (Adamczyk, 2021; Kislev 2020b; MacDonald & Park, 2022b; Park et al., 2021; Pepping & MacDonald, 2019). Finally, researchers investigating contemporary singlehood are currently attempting to avoid comparing single and coupled individuals, with the latter having previously been treated as the benchmark for single individuals (DePaulo & Morris, 2005; Oh et al., 2021). Moreover, the constant comparison of singlehood to marital and nonmarital relationships may hinder the efforts to find a place for single people in science even among single people themselves. Indeed, higher endorsement of relationship-centric beliefs (e. g., ‘No one is truly complete without the love of a romantic partner’) among single individuals may lead to a greater fear of being single, which undermines life satisfaction (Dennett & Girme, 2020). Moreover, the well-being of single individuals may be greatly affected by how they are treated by other people (Girme et al., 2022), which may take the form of prejudice based on a conviction over single individuals’ ability and desire to unsingle themselves (Fisher & Sakaluk 2020). The rising number of single individuals in many countries (e. g., Bühler & Nikitin, 2020; Kislev, 2020a; Pepping & MacDonald, 2019) underscores the arguments that single individuals cannot be ignored in science (DePaulo & Morris, 2015; Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004) and that they remain ‘at the cutting edge of social change’ (Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004). The notion of singlehood as being at the cutting edge of social change is also reinforced by the notion that the majority of studies on singlehood, like most of the research in other fields of psychology, rely on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries, especially the United States (Cheon et al. 2020; Kahalon et al., 2022; Thalmayer et al. 2021). This means that studies from non-WEIRD countries receive less scientific attention than research from WEIRD countries (Kahalon et al., 2022), and ‘89% of the world’s population continues to be neglected’ (Thalmayer et al. 2021, p. 116). Therefore, to contribute to enhancing visibility in research on singlehood in countries other than the United States, we recognized European countries’ participation in the ESS as an excellent opportunity to counteract the reliance in psychology on data collected from North America. We believe that the analysis of data collected in Europe constitutes an important continuation of research on singlehood across non-American countries (e. g., Adamczyk, 2021; Chizomam & Isiugo-Abanihe, 2014; Mandujano-Salazar, 2019) and allows examination of the (dis)similarity of cultural and social factors operating in European and North American regions. Based on the current trends in singlehood research indicated above and recognizing singlehood as a full-fledged life path (DePaulo, 2013), we felt encouraged to provide researchers representing diverse disciplines and nonacademic

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

16

Introduction

people with a comprehensive elaboration based on the large datasets collected under the scope of the ESS of several dimensions of psychosocial functioning of single individuals across European countries. Specifically, to go beyond the previously predominant line in singlehood research that concentrated on the negative outcomes of singlehood and reinforced the ‘pathologizing deficit perspective of singlehood’ (Jackson, 2018), in the current book, we focus on the factors associated with single people’s happiness. This is due to the notion that happiness may be the primary basic goal that people attempt to achieve in their lives (Diener, 2000) and because the ability to be happy and satisfied with life has been recognized as an essential criterion of adaptation and positive mental health outcomes (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). The overarching aims of the present book are to provide ready-to-use data on the phenomenon of singlehood in Europe and deeper insight into the factors associated with the happiness of single adults in Europe. Although the issue of happiness as a function of relationship status was previously analyzed by Kislev (2020a) based on the data collected in the ESS, he did not focus solely on single people but rather compared single with coupled individuals. Furthermore, Kislev (2020a) selected only individuals aged 30 and above and utilized data collected from only the first to the eighth ESS rounds (2002–2016). Our book overcomes these limitations by utilizing the data collected in nine ESS rounds (2002–2018) and by concentrating on single individuals aged at least 18 years because of the contemporary stronger detachment from traditional developmental tasks in the domain of marriage and family from a specific age (e. g., Bühler & Nikitin, 2020). We hope that the current book contributes to further making a shelter for single individuals in science and to the recognition of singlehood as a valid and authentic way of life and area of scientific research. Katarzyna Adamczyk and Radosław Trepanowski

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Overview of the book

The European Social Survey (ESS) (https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org) is a survey of social attitudes and behaviors conducted in Europe every two years since 2002. This survey is based on cross-sectional probability samples representative of the residents of 33 European countries aged above 15 years old. The number of countries participating in the survey varies between measurements. To be precise, in the first measurement, 22 countries participated, while in the ninth measurement, 27 countries participated. In total, from 2002 to 2018, there were nine measurements (the assessment was not performed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic). To facilitate the further analyses presented in the current book, the enrollment of countries in each ESS round is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. As Table 1 and Figure 1 display, European countries participated in each ESS round and in the ESS overall to different degrees, ranging from participation in only one round (Albania, Montenegro, Romania and Serbia) to participation in all nine ESS rounds (14 countries). To provide a novel, comprehensive, and broader picture of singlehood in Europe, among the rich data gathered under the scope of the ESS, we decided to focus on the four dimensions of single people’s functioning, i. e., subjective wellbeing, subjective general health, human values and religion (see Table 2). We recognized these four dimensions as important areas of single’s people functioning, as they go beyond those widely investigated in past research on the negative outcomes of single status, such as loneliness and depression (Adamczyk, 2021; Jackson, 2018). Moreover, the issue of human values and religion among single individuals has been examined to only a limited degree in the literature devoted to singlehood. Therefore, we intended to focus on these two dimensions to explore their role in single individuals’ happiness.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

18

Overview of the book

Table 1 List of Countries Participating in Each ESS Round ESS Round

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

R9

Years 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 collected Albania x Austria x x x x x x Belgium x x x x x x x x x Bulgaria x x x x x x Croatia x x x x Cyprus x x x x x Czechia x x x x x x x x Denmark x x x x x x x x Estonia x x x x x x x x Finland x x x x x x x x x France x x x x x x x x x Germany x x x x x x x x Greece x x x x Hungary x x x x x x x x x Iceland x x x x Ireland x x x x x x x x x Israel x x x x x x Italy x x x x Kosovo x Latvia x x Lithuania x x x x x Luxembourg x x Montenegro x Netherlands x x x x x x x x x Norway x x x x x x x x x Poland x x x x x x x x x Portugal x x x x x x x x x Romania x Russia x x x x x Serbia x Slovakia x x x x x x Slovenia x x x x x x x x x Spain x x x x x x x x x Sweden x x x x x x x x x Switzerland x x x x x x x x x Turkey x x Ukraine x x x x x United x x x x x x x x x Kingdom

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Number of rounds 2002–2018 1 6 9 6 4 5 8 8 8 9 9 8 4 9 4 9 6 4 2 2 5 2 1 9 9 9 9 1 5 1 6 9 9 9 9 2 5 9

19

Overview of the book

Figure 1. Map Presenting Countries’ Contributions to the ESS. Note. ESS = European Social Survey. The intensification of colors indicates participation in higher numbers of ESS rounds.

Table 2 Dimensions of Functioning Analyzed in the Current Monograph Dimensions of functioning Happiness Frequency of social meeting with friends, relatives or colleagues Having anyone to discuss intimate and personal matters with The number of people with whom a person can discuss intimate and personal matters 5. Frequency of taking part in social activities Subjective health 1. Subjective general health 2. Being hampered in daily activities by illness/disability/infirmity/ mental health Subjective wellbeing

1. 2. 3. 4.

Human values

1. 2. 3. 4.

Self-enhancement Self-transcendence Conservation Openness to change

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

20

Overview of the book

Table 2 (Continued) Dimensions of functioning 1. Belonging to a particular religion or denomination 2. Being religious 3. Frequency of attending religious services other than on special occasions 4. Frequency of praying apart from praying at religious services Source: Own elaboration based on the European Social Survey (ESS), available at https:// www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/. Religion

The four dimensions of single people’s functioning displayed in Table 2 determined the major structure of the current book. To be precise, three chapters are devoted to the elaboration of each area of single adults’ functioning and provide descriptive results. These chapters are preceded by a chapter presenting statistics on the prevalence of singlehood in European countries and describing the sociodemographic profile of single people. The fifth and last chapter presents the results of the final analysis in which we jointly test the predictors of single people’s happiness across countries. We emphasize that the current book does not claim to be an exhaustive study of happiness in general, as it focuses only on single, never-married respondents and, importantly, concentrates on merely a few selected factors as potentially related to happiness among single individuals.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Chapter 1. Singles in numbers ‘Today, being married is less likely to be considered a key part of adulthood, and more and more people report having freely chosen to stay single’ Bühler and Nikitin (2020)

Defining singlehood Answering the question of how many single people live in Europe is not an easy task due to at least two circumstances. The first difficulty arises from the way in which a single person is defined in the literature and the heterogeneity among single people. With respect to the definition of a single person (see Adamczyk 2021 for a review), forty-six years ago, Stein (1976) defined a single person as a woman or man who is not in a hetero- or homosexual marital or informal relationship. This reference to marital and informal unions in defining a single person was also been made by DePaulo and Morris (2005), who distinguished between 1) the legal approach based on civil status and defining a single person as a person who is not in a marriage and (2) the social approach based on the subjective evaluation of an individual as a person who is not in a serious relationship. Recently, van den Berg and Verbakel (2022) proposed defining singlehood in young adulthood ‘as the period after leaving the parental home and before first-time union formation (cohabitation or marriage)’ (p. 2). In turn, the heterogeneity of single people means that this group involves both individuals who have never been married, divorced or widowed (DePaulo & Morris, 2005; Stein, 2008; Z˙urek, 2008) and individuals who vary in regard to sexual orientation, age, educational level, income, place of residence, living arrangement (i. e., living alone or with someone) and parental status (Stein, 2008). The second difficulty in determining precise single population shares arises from the fact that most census or large-scale data provide us with general and broad information concerning civil status (legal status) and partnership status, which is assessed, for instance, by the distribution of individuals in private households by their status in the current relationship (OECD, 2020). For instance, one of the three types of partnership status involves the subcategory of people who do not live with a partner (OECD, 2020). It is easy to notice that reliance on a

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

22

Singles in numbers

sole criterion specific to private households may be too broad and inclusive since the term people who do not live with a partner may simultaneously denote a) coupled people who do not live in a household with a spouse within a marital union or with a partner within a civil or registered partnership, b) single parents who live without a partner but who live with at least one child, c) divorced people or people whose relationship has ended, d) widowed people or people who lost their partner from a civil or registered partnership, and finally, e) people who are indeed single, i. e., who have never been married or in a civil or registered partnership and who do not live with a partner. We encountered a similar difficulty in determining the subcategory of single people in the database collected in the ESS. To be precise, despite numerous questions concerning legal marital status and household, none of the questions directly pertain to the objective state of having or not having a partner.

The shares of single individuals To select for our further analyses the individuals who fit as closely as possible the criterion of not having a partner/spouse and who constitute a unique subgroup of never-married single individuals who have different relational experiences from divorced and widowed individuals (Kislev, 2018), we prepared the dataset in three steps. In the first step, based on the variables marsts, martial, martiala, and martialb, which pertain to legal marital status, we selected participants who had a partner or a spouse and participants who had missing data in these variables. Multiple variables were used at this point, as each describes legal marital status in a different way or in a different measurement/round. As a result of this selection, we retained participants who were never married or who were widowed or divorced. These statuses do not explicitly indicate whether a person has a partner (e. g., a person may be divorced but in an informal relationship and have a partner); thus, in the second step, we used another set of variables, i. e., rshpsts, partner, rship2, and rshipa2, to filter out people who reported living with a partner or had missing data to retain in the database participants who were not married or in any other type of union and not living with a spouse/partner. In the last step, we filtered out people younger than 18 years old or with missing data in the age variable, as age 18 is recognized as the beginning of the period of young adulthood (Staudinger & Bluck, 2001) and the establishment of an intimate relationship with a partner/spouse has been recognized as one of the essential developmental tasks in this period (Rauer et al., 2013). Implementing the three steps described above enabled us to reasonably assume that we retained in the database mostly single individuals, although it is still

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

23

The shares of single individuals

probable that some of these individuals might have recently initiated a relationship, are not living together but are in a relationship, or are in a long-distance relationship. Our final sample consisted of 146938 participants. In addition, for the purpose of further analyses, we filtered out participants with missing data on additional demographic variables (i. e., gender, education, place of residence, employment relation), which resulted in a sample of 143259 participants. In the first step, we calculated the percentage of single people in each country1 in each ESS round. We present an overview of these data in Table S1 and Figure S1 in the online supplemental materials available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository: https://bit.ly/3R2ks1p. The total percentage of single people based on the data collected in all nine ESS rounds for each country are displayed in Figure 2 and Table 3. In Table 3, the data present the percentage of single respondents with reference to respondents of other relationship statuses and are sorted from the lowest to the highest values. Table 3 Percentage of Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country

All ESS rounds (N = 142056) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Country Turkey Iceland Denmark Latvia Finland Norway Cyprus France Sweden Belgium Germany Israel Luxembourg Slovenia Spain Portugal Switzerland Estonia

N 4272 3072 12408 2898 17955 14654 5190 17061 15929 16110 25700 14910 3187 12232 17169 16043 15402 15314

Total singles 34.73% Total singles 26.60% 27.90% 28.19% 28.61% 28.62% 29.17% 30.86% 31.38% 31.42% 31.48% 31.65% 31.81% 32.16% 33.37% 33.60% 33.81% 33.89% 33.92%

1 Preparing the dataset for the analyses, we noted null or small numbers of single individuals in a few of countries across the measurements; i. e., France in the first and second rounds, Estonia in the fourth round and Finland in the fifth round had no single individuals, whereas Portugal in the eighth round and Latvia in the ninth round had a minuscule percentage of single individuals. Therefore, these countries were subsequently removed from the cross-country comparisons.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

24

Singles in numbers

Table 3 (Continued) Total singles All ESS rounds (N = 142056)

34.73%

No.

Country

N

Total singles

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Poland Netherlands Italy Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Ireland Czechia Croatia Hungary United Kingdom Austria Ukraine Lithuania Russia

15624 16859 7538 10522 9759 9874 20463 17614 4943 14793 19830 13222 9987 9993 12458

34.24% 35.49% 35.96% 36.28% 36.36% 37.32% 37.68% 38.00% 38.71% 39.26% 39.87% 40.31% 41.16% 41.87% 46.63%

Table 3 shows that Turkey has the lowest percentage of single people (26.60%) across all nine ESS rounds and Russia the highest (46.63%). Table 3 also shows that six countries (Turkey, Iceland, Denmark, Latvia, Finland, Norway) have a range of the percentage of singles from 20% to 29%, while 23 countries beginning from Cyprus to the United Kingdom (from 30% to 39%) fall in the middle range. In turn, four countries (Austria, Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia) have percentages of single people in the highest range (above 40%).

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

The shares of single individuals

25

Figure 2. Total Percentage of Singles in Each Country in All Nine ESS Rounds Stratified by Gender. Note. Darker color indicates an increasing percentage of single individuals in each country.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

26

Singles in numbers

Table 4 displays the data showing the total shares of single individuals stratified by ESS round from 2002 to 2018. Table 4 Percentage of Single People by ESS Round

Total singles ESS Round Year collected All Nine EES Rounds Round 1 2002 Round 2 2004 Round 3 2006 Round 4 2008 Round 5 2010 Round 6 2012 Round 7 2014 Round 8 2016 Round 9 2018 Percentage 2002–2018 change between Rounds 1 and 9

N 430870 42359 47537 43000 56752 52458 54673 40185 44387 49519 -

% 34.73% 32.04% 33.10% 34.91% 34.19% 35.96% 36.38% 35.38% 35.02%. 35.26% -

Percentage change between the consecutive rounds % + 1.06% + 1.81% -0.72% + 1.77% + 0.42% -1% -0.36% + 0.24% 3.22%

As Table 4 shows, the total percentage of single individuals across all the European countries in all nine ESS rounds (from 2002 to 2018) is estimated to be 34.73%. The data shown in Table 4 indicate that over the 16 years of the ESS, there was an increase in the percentage of single individuals by 3.2 percentage points from 32.04% in 2002 and to 35.26% in 2018.

The sociodemographic profile of single people In the next step of the analyses, we determine the basic sociodemographic profile of single individuals. To be precise, we characterize single individuals in regard to 1) age, 2) gender, 3) education, 4) place of residence, 5) employment relation and 6) ever living with a child/children in the household. Due to the richness of these data (for each country in each ESS round), we present them in Figures S2–S7 in the online supplemental materials.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

27

The sociodemographic profile of single people

Age Table 5 displays the mean age of single people in each country across all nine ESS rounds sorted from the lowest to the highest values. Table 5 Mean Age of Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country Age No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Country Turkey Luxemburg Israel Spain Poland Belgium Norway Italy Cyprus Iceland Slovenia Germany Greece Denmark Ireland Switzerland Austria Sweden Czechia Russia Croatia Slovakia Finland Hungary Netherlands Estonia Latvia Portugal United Kingdom France Ukraine Bulgaria Lithuania

N 1101 933 4382 5684 5219 4931 4228 2622 1528 829 3770 7994 3500 3310 7356 5180 5261 4926 6403 5686 1813 3460 5104 5151 5926 5074 814 5224

M 35.58 39.30 41.42 42.90 43.09 43.28 43.45 43.61 43.89 43.96 44.44 44.59 45.04 45.75 46.03 46.12 46.39 46.56 47.16 48.04 48.05 48.14 49.06 49.38 50.35 50.67 51.00 51.23

SD 19.59 20.71 22.071 21.81 22.19 22.13 21.05 22.07 21.22 21.10 22.23 21.21 21.45 22.11 21.442 21.41 20.65 22.01 20.36 20.75 21.91 21.35 21.623 21.50 20.63 22.03 20.72 22.44

7618

51.48

21.34

5325 3915 3754 4035

51.54 52.37 53.85 54.36

20.86 21.13 20.80 20.64

As Table 5 shows, the lowest mean age of single people appears in Turkey (M = 35.58), whereas the highest mean age of single people is observed in Lithuania (M = 54.36). Figure 3 shows the mean age of single individuals across all the countries in each ESS round in the period between 2002 and 2018.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

28

Singles in numbers

Figure 3. Mean Age of Single People in Each ESS Round

For the first ESS round, the mean age of single people across all countries is 45.41 years (SD = 21.82) (age range: 18–103), whereas for the ninth round, the mean age is 49.57 years (SD = 21.67) (age range: 18–90). The total mean age of single people across all nine ESS rounds (2002–2018) is 47.34 years (SD = 21.73) (age range: 18– 114). The age range implies that people can be single across the entire human life span from the period of young adulthood (roughly ages 18–30; Staudinger & Bluck, 2001) to late adulthood (above 60 years; Harwas-Napierała & Trempała, 2021).

Gender Table 6 displays the gender distribution among single people in each country based on the data collected in all nine ESS rounds. The values in Table 6 are sorted from lowest to highest among single women. In the ESS, gender is measured in only the two categories of women (coded as 2) and men (coded as 1). We present the data separately for women and men in line with the recent recognition of

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

29

The sociodemographic profile of single people

differences in demographic trends in singlehood among men and women (van den Berg & Verbakel, 2022). Table 6 Percentage of Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Gender Single women

Single men

58.60%

41.40%

N 4228 933 4926 7994 5684 7356 3310 829 4931 2622 5104 5261 5219 5180 6403 1101 3500 1528 3770 4382 5926

Single women 51.20% 51.40% 52.10% 52.4% 53.0% 53.4% 53.7% 54.0% 54.4% 54.7% 55.4% 56.0% 56.4% 56.5% 56.8% 56.9% 57.8% 58.0% 58.1% 58.4% 59.6%

Single men 48.80% 48.60% 47.90% 47.6% 47.0% 46.6% 46.3% 46.0% 45.6% 45.3% 44.6% 44.0% 43.6% 43.5% 43.2% 43.1% 42.2% 42.0% 41.9% 41.6% 40.4%

7618

59.7%

40.3%

3460 5325 5151 3754 1813 5074 5224 814 4035 5686 3915

59.9% 60.4% 60.9% 61.7% 62.9% 65.4% 67.6% 67.9% 69.6% 70.2% 70.8%

40.1% 39.6% 39.1% 38.3% 37.1% 34.6% 32.4% 32.1% 30.4% 29.8% 29.2%

All ESS rounds (N = 142056) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Country Norway Luxemburg Sweden Germany Spain Ireland Denmark Iceland Belgium Italy Finland Austria Poland Switzerland Czechia Turkey Greece Cyprus Slovenia Israel Netherlands United Kingdom Slovakia France Hungary Bulgaria Croatia Estonia Portugal Latvia Lithuania Russia Ukraine

As Table 6 displays, the lowest percentage of single women (51.20%) is noted in Norway (48.80% single men), whereas the highest percentage of single women (70.80%) is noted in Ukraine (29.20% single men). The gender distribution across each ESS round in the period between 2002 and 2018 is presented in Figure 4.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

30

Singles in numbers

Figure 4. Gender Distribution among Single People in Each ESS Round

For 2002 (N = 12924), single women constitute 56.54% of the sample and single men 43.46%. In the ninth round in 2018 (N = 15989), single women constitute 58.26% of the sample and single men 41.74%. This means that over the 16 years of the ESS, the share of single women rose by 1.72 percentage points whereas that of single men declined by the same magnitude. In the total sample involving all the countries across all nine ESS rounds (N = 142056), single women constitute 58.60% of the sample, while single men constitute 41.40%. The difference between the percentages of single women and men is estimated to be 17.20%. This difference corresponds to the sex ratio in Europe (in 2020, the sex ratio was estimated to be 93.40 women per 100 men; United Nations, 2019), showing a similar distribution. One of the reasons for this sex imbalance among single individuals might be that more single women choose a single life than men (Z˙urek, 2008).

Education Table 7 displays the distribution of education levels in each country across all nine ESS rounds. The values in Table 7 are sorted from lowest to highest.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

No. Country N 1 Czechia 6403 2 Slovakia 3460 3 Germany 7994 4 Austria 5261 5 Iceland 829 6 Switzerland 5180 7 Latvia 814 8 Poland 5219 9 Slovenia 3770 10 Estonia 5074 11 Denmark 3310 12 Hungary 5151 13 Israel 4382 14 Russia 5686 15 Bulgaria 3754 16 Lithuania 4035 17 Croatia 1813 18 Belgium 4931 19 Netherlands 5926 20 Norway 4228 21 Sweden 4926 22 Ukraine 3915 23 Italy 2622 24 Ireland 7356

1.3% 1.6% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 3.9% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 7.3% 7.7% 9.4% 10.0% 11.1% 11.9% 12.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.7% 15.0% 18.9%

18.3% 19.4% 16.4% 21.7% 35.8% 20.8% 25.8% 34.2% 20.7% 20.8% 25.7% 23.7% 11.1% 9.2% 24.6% 19.4% 14.9% 19.1% 31.7% 31.7% 14.3% 8.6% 26.2% 19.6%

Less than lower secon- Lower secondary education completed dary education (ISCED 0–1) (ISCED 2) 62.4% 64.1% 50.4% 57.3% 27.6% 49.0% 50.4% 42.5% 56.7% 38.3% 36.8% 49.5% 48.6% 30.3% 46.1% 35.4% 55.3% 37.0% 26.9% 26.9% 43.2% 23.4% 42.7% 24.4%

Upper secondary education completed (ISCED 3)

Education (%)

Table 7 Education Distribution among Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country

Postsecondary nontertiary education completed (ISCED 4) 6.8% 1.6% 7.9% 6.6% 4.0% 2.2% 0.2% 4.1% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 4.9% 3.8% 0.0% 0.5% 5.6% 0.0% 5.3% 2.9% 2.9% 5.2% 6.2% 0.9% 5.8%

11.2% 13.4% 22.9% 11.8% 30.0% 24.1% 19.3% 14.7% 18.2% 24.4% 31.5% 14.9% 29.2% 52.7% 19.4% 29.6% 18.7% 26.7% 26.5% 26.5% 24.3% 47.2% 15.3% 31.3%

Tertiary education completed (ISCED 5–6)

The sociodemographic profile of single people

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

31

Country

N

Less than lower secon- Lower secondary edudary education (ISCED cation completed 0–1) (ISCED 2)

Finland 5104 19.0% 13.7% France 5325 21.6% 9.4% Cyprus 1528 23.2% 6.2% Spain 5684 28.1% 22.8% Luxemburg 933 28.5% 15.4% Greece 3500 28.9% 10.0% United 31 7618 30.6% 16.6% Kingdom 32 Turkey 1101 40.2% 17.1% 33 Portugal 5224 49.4% 15.0% Note. ISCED = International Standard Classification of Education.

25 26 27 28 29 30

No.

Table 7 (Continued)

2.7% 1.1% 0.4% 6.4% 2.6% 1.4% 1.8% 0.0% 0.8%

19.5% 32.2% 20.3%

Postsecondary nontertiary education completed (ISCED 4)

39.5% 40.0% 34.8% 20.7% 35.4% 36.3%

Upper secondary education completed (ISCED 3)

Education (%)

10.5% 14.5%

31.6%

25.1% 27.9% 35.5% 22.1% 18.1% 23.4%

Tertiary education completed (ISCED 5–6)

32 Singles in numbers

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

The sociodemographic profile of single people

33

As Table 7 shows, the lowest percentage of single people with less than lower secondary education (International Standard Classification of Education [ISCED] 0–1) is noted in Czechia (1.30%), whereas the highest is observed in Portugal (49.40%). The distribution of education among single people across all the countries in each ESS round over the period of 16 years is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Distribution of Education among Singles in Each ESS Round

In all measurements (N = 12924), upper secondary education (ISCED 3) is the most prevalent education type (~41%). In the nine ESS rounds (N = 143207), 13.10% of single people report completing less than lower secondary education (ISCED 0–1), 18.80% lower secondary education (ISCED 2), 39.50% upper secondary education (ISCED 3), 3.90% postsecondary nontertiary education (ISCED 4), and 24.70% tertiary education (ISCED 5–6).

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

34

Singles in numbers

Place of residence Table 8 displays the distribution of the place of residence of single people in each country based on the data collected across all nine ESS rounds for each country. The data in Table 8 are sorted from the lowest to the highest percentage of single respondents living in a large city. Table 8 Place of Residence among Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country Place of residence (%)

No.

Country

N

1

Ireland United Kingdom Italy Switzerland Slovenia Luxemburg Belgium Sweden Slovakia Norway Iceland Germany Finland Spain Denmark France Poland Hungary Netherlands Czechia Portugal Croatia Austria Estonia Ukraine Lithuania Russia Cyprus Bulgaria Latvia Greece Turkey Israel

7356

9.4%

22.5%

29.3%

13.0%

Farm or home in countryside 25.8%

7618

10.6%

22.6%

46.8%

17.6%

2.4%

2622 5180 3770 933 4931 4926 3460 4228 829 7994 5104 5684 3310 5325 5219 5151 5926 6403 5224 1813 5261 5074 3915 4035 5686 1528 3754 814 3500 1101 4382

11.2% 11.8% 12.5% 14.0% 17.5% 17.8% 19.5% 20.4% 20.5% 21.9% 22.7% 22.7% 24.6% 24.7% 25.2% 26.5% 27.6% 28.0% 28.5% 28.8% 29.1% 30.5% 32.7% 34.2% 40.3% 40.8% 41.6% 41.9% 50.9% 52.0% 56.4%

5.7% 11.1% 13.2% 10.6% 9.5% 22.2% 5.5% 16.8% 22.3% 12.6% 13.0% 5.9% 21.3% 11.7% 3.9% 4.2% 10.4% 4.2% 16.0% 8.4% 9.5% 6.8% 1.5% 1.6% 4.2% 12.0% 2.4% 4.4% 13.2% 7.3% 11.4%

38.6% 26.0% 22.0% 26.8% 25.8% 36.5% 30.7% 29.3% 41.9% 38.6% 30.1% 29.4% 34.1% 35.0% 31.5% 35.8% 26.2% 40.6% 28.9% 23.9% 26.7% 36.9% 30.8% 34.2% 35.2% 17.6% 23.6% 29.7% 13.3% 13.0% 20.5%

41.2% 47.6% 45.5% 46.5% 42.8% 15.7% 44.0% 18.6% 9.7% 25.3% 18.1% 39.3% 13.2% 23.6% 38.7% 32.2% 33.3% 26.7% 25.6% 38.6% 31.5% 20.4% 34.9% 29.4% 19.6% 29.6% 32.2% 14.4% 22.3% 27.7% 11.2%

3.4% 3.6% 6.7% 2.0% 4.4% 7.8% 0.3% 14.8% 5.7% 1.5% 16.1% 2.7% 6.8% 5.0% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.3% 3.2% 5.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 9.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Suburbs or A large city outskirts of large city

Town or small city

Country village

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

The sociodemographic profile of single people

35

As Table 8 shows, the lowest percentage of single people living in a large city (9.60%) is noted in Ireland and the highest (56.40%) in Israel. The distribution of the place of residence of single respondents across all the countries in each ESS round from 2002 to 2018 is displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Distribution of Place of Residence among Singles in Each ESS Round

In 2002 (N = 12924), the highest share of single people (30.10%, n = 3891) lived in a town or small city, with a similar percentage (32.20%, n = 5145) observed (N = 15989) for 2018. In the total sample involving all the countries across all nine ESS rounds (N = 143207), 25.50% of single people live in a large city, 10.90% in the suburbs or outskirts of a large city, 31.30% in a town or small city, 27.60% in a country village, and 4.60% in a farm or home in the countryside.

Employment Table 9 displays the distribution of employment relations among single people in each country based on the data gathered in all nine ESS rounds. The data in Table 9 are sorted from the lowest to the highest values with reference to the category ‘employee’.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

36

Singles in numbers

Table 9 Employment Relation among Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country Employment relation No.

Country

N

Employee

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Turkey Greece Italy Luxembourg Cyprus Spain Portugal Poland Croatia Belgium Slovenia Ireland Israel Czechia Slovakia Austria Germany Netherlands France Hungary United Kingdom Switzerland Lithuania Finland Sweden Bulgaria Ukraine Russia Iceland Norway Latvia Estonia Denmark

1098 3497 2596 930 1517 5661 5213 5196 1808 4889 3736 7339 4372 6361 3447 5195 7967 5860 5320 5116

34.2% 51.7% 55.0% 60.6% 65.1% 66.9% 69.7% 70.0% 71.4% 73.6% 74.7% 75.7% 77.5% 78.1% 79.4% 79.7% 80.9% 81.9% 82.4% 82.4%

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Self-employed 5.6% 20.8% 13.2% 10.1% 11.5% 9.9% 10.2% 11.9% 4.0% 7.1% 4.5% 9.8% 8.3% 6.5% 6.3% 9.7% 7.8% 9.8% 7.9% 4.4%

Working for own family business 2.2% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 2.2% 1.8% 0.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9% 1.1%

Not applicable 57.9% 25.6% 30.0% 27.7% 21.2% 21.4% 19.3% 17.1% 23.3% 17.6% 18.8% 12.6% 13.6% 14.6% 13.8% 9.6% 9.9% 6.9% 8.8% 12.0%

7641

83.5%

9.8%

1.1%

5.6%

5149 4018 5102 4914 3736 3885 5652 821 4225 814 5049 3304

83.6% 83.7% 84.5% 85.6% 85.8% 85.9% 86.4% 86.7% 87.4% 88.2% 88.3% 89.9%

9.0% 3.5% 9.1% 8.1% 3.2% 3.0% 3.3% 8.9% 7.4% 2.5% 4.5% 5.7%

1.7% 0.8% 2.9% 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 3.4% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%

5.7% 12.0% 3.4% 5.2% 10.1% 10.7% 9.8% 1.0% 3.6% 8.4% 6.3% 3.7%

As Table 9 displays, the lowest percentage of single people (34.20%) who report being an employee is noted in Turkey and the highest (89.90%) in Denmark. Figure 7 displays the employment relation indicated by single individuals across all ESS rounds from 2002 to 2018. The highest share of single people (87.10%) indicated their relation to work as being an employee in 2002 (N = 12924), with a similar percentage (89.30%) also noted in 2018. In the total sample involving all the countries across all nine ESS rounds (N = 143207), 89.50% of single individuals indicate being an employee,

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

The sociodemographic profile of single people

37

Figure 7. Distribution of Employment among Singles in Each ESS Round

9% that they are self-employed and 1.40% that they work for their own family business.

Living with children In our determination of single people’s sociodemographic profiles, we intended to provide information on parental status. In the ESS dataset, however, this information is not available, and thus among the various questions concerning children, we select ‘Have you ever had any children of your own, step-children, adopted children, foster children or a partner’s children living in your household?’ In our opinion, this question can provide some insight into parental status, although it does not directly indicate whether a person is or is not a parent. Table 10 displays the percentage of single people ever living with a child/ children for each country based on the data collected in all nine ESS rounds for a given country. The data in Table 10 are sorted from the lowest to the highest percentage answering ‘Yes’ to the question above.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

38

Singles in numbers

Table 10 Ever Having any Children (Own, Step, Adopted, Foster or a Partner’s) Living in the Household among Single Individuals in All Nine ESS Rounds by Country Ever had children living in household No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Country Turkey Spain Italy Poland Luxembourg Ireland Israel Greece Belgium Portugal Slovenia Switzerland Cyprus Germany Croatia Ukraine Norway Austria Iceland Slovakia Netherlands Hungary Sweden Finland Latvia Denmark Czechia United Kingdom Russia Estonia France Bulgaria Lithuania

N 1082 5652 2538 5108 873 7283 4051 3475 4767 4910 3500 5165 1510 7933 1766 3846 4230 5193 796 3385 5916 5136 4931 5070 814 3078 6188 7644 5668 5048 5283 3730 4024

Yes 6.7% 15.7% 16.9% 19.1% 19.9% 20.5% 20.8% 23.2% 24.9% 26.1% 26.6% 28.3% 28.4% 28.7% 28.9% 29.8% 30.0% 30.4% 31.3% 34.2% 34.6% 35.7% 35.7% 36.3% 36.5% 37.0% 38.2% 38.7% 38.9% 39.6% 42.9% 43.3% 49.6%

No 77.0% 69.3% 74.1% 60.5% 67.9% 63.9% 60.2% 63.1% 59.6% 57.6% 52.4% 62.4% 58.3% 59.4% 55.4% 42.0% 55.7% 56.6% 49.0% 49.8% 52.0% 46.8% 50.6% 54.0% 41.0% 51.2% 47.3% 44.3% 39.9% 40.5% 41.7% 37.2% 33.6%

Not applicable 16.3% 15.0% 9.0% 20.4% 12.1% 15.6% 19.0% 13.8% 15.5% 16.4% 21.1% 9.2% 13.3% 12.0% 15.7% 28.1% 14.3% 13.0% 19.7% 16.0% 13.4% 17.5% 13.7% 9.7% 22.5% 11.8% 14.4% 16.9% 21.3% 19.9% 15.4% 19.5% 16.8%

As Table 10 displays, the lowest percentage of single people (6.70%) who ever had any child/children living in the household is noted in Turkey and the highest (49.60%) in Lithuania. Figure 8 shows the percentage of ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Not applicable’ answers to the question ‘Have you ever had any children of your own, step-children, adopted children, foster children or a partner’s children living in your household?’ in each ESS round. In 2002 (N = 12924), 67.20% of single individuals indicated that they had never lived with a child/children, while 32.80% of single individuals indicated that they

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

39

Summary

Figure 8. Distribution of Ever Living with a Child/Children among Singles in Each ESS Round

had. In 2018 (N = 13429), 60.40% of single individuals indicated that they had never lived with a child/children and 39.60% that they had. In the total sample involving all the countries across all nine ESS rounds (N = 118407), 62.90% of single individuals report that they have never lived with a child/children in the household and 37.10% that they have.

Summary Summarizing the sociodemographic data in regard to European single individuals, we may indicate the following: 1. For the period between 2002 and 2018, the percentage of never-married single adults in Europe is estimated to be 34.73%, with the lowest percentage of single people (26.60%) in Turkey and the highest percentage of single people (46.63%) in Russia. 2. Over the period 2002–2018, there was an increase in the percentage of single individuals by 3.22 percentage points from 32.04% in 2002 to 35.26% in 2018. 3. The mean age of single people in the period between 2002 and 2018 was 47.34 years (SD = 21.73) (age range: 18–114), which situates the average single person in the period of middle adulthood (aged approximately 45–65; Mehta

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

40

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Singles in numbers

et al., 2020). The lowest mean age of single people is noted in Turkey (M = 35.58), whereas the highest is observed in Lithuania (M = 54.36). Women constitute 58.60% and men 41.40% of the single population. The lowest percentage of single women (51.20%) is noted in Norway, whereas the highest (70.80%) is noted in Ukraine. An average European single person has completed upper secondary education (ISCED 3) (39.30% of single people). The lowest percentage of single people with less than lower secondary education is noted in Czechia (1.30%), whereas the highest is observed in Portugal (49.40%). The average European single person lives in a town or small city (31.30% of single people). The lowest percentage of single people living in a large city (13.00%) is noted in Turkey, whereas the highest percentage of single people living in a town or small city (46.8%) is noted in the United Kingdom. The average European single person works as an employee rather than for their own family business. The lowest percentage of single people (34.20%) who indicate being an employee is noted in Turkey, whereas the highest (89.90%) is observed in Denmark. The average European single person has never lived with a child/children in the household. The lowest percentage of single people (6.70%) who have ever had any child/children living in the same household is noted in Turkey, whereas the highest (49.60%) is observed in Lithuania.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

Chapter 2. Subjective well-being and general health of single people ‘Not all people who are single, even those who are strongly motivated to sustain close relationships, are facing a less satisfying life’ Girme, Overall, Faingataa, and Sibley (2016)

In the literature, we may note the theoretical diversity in definitions of human well-being (Kaczmarek, 2016) and multiple definitions of happiness (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2007). For instance, Diener (1984) proposed three definitions of happiness. The first pertains to adherence to proper functioning and the vision of morality held by society. The second refers to a cognitive evaluation of life as a whole and constitutes a person-centered view of happiness that relies on the subjective judgments of whether a person is satisfied with his or her life. (Diener, 1984). The third definition is based on positive and negative moods and the balance between them (Diener, 1984). Happiness is also understood as including a diversity of positive feelings beginning from states of low intensity, such as contentment, enjoyment, serenity, and amusement, to states of high intensity, such as elation, joy, and euphoria (Lyubomirsky & Kurtz, 2009). In their integrative model of happiness, Lubomirsky, Sheldon and Schakade (2005) conceptualized happiness in terms of frequent positive affect, high life satisfaction, and infrequent negative affect, which are also the major elements of Diener’s (1984) view of subjective well-being. Despite this variety of conceptualizations of happiness, Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2007) emphasized that Diener’s (1984) second and third definitions (person-centered) of happiness have dominated the domain of happiness research. Finally, it is important to emphasize the existence of cultural and historical variations in the concept of happiness (Oishi et al., 2013). In the past, happiness was predominantly conceptualized in terms of good luck and beneficial external conditions, while the modern-day American use of the term happiness focuses on favorable internal feelings (Oishi et al., 2013). Moreover, the diversity of understandings of happiness across languages, cultures, and time may have significant consequences for research on happiness and subjective wellbeing (Oishi et al., 2013). For instance, research has showed the differences in happiness between Americans and Europeans, with these differences interpreted with reference to the various perceptions of the degree of mobility of life in the USA and Europe (Alesina et al., 2004). Moreover, a recent review of empirical

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

42

Subjective well-being and general health of single people

research analyzing cross-national differences in the correlates of subjective wellbeing suggests that people’s individual characteristics contribute to happiness when they are beneficial, socially desirable, and aspirational in a given social and cultural context (Stavrova, 2019).

Happiness of singles Bergström and colleagues (2019) noted that ‘couplehood is still the main gateway to parenthood and is strongly associated with contemporary ideas of happiness and personal fulfillment’ (p. 120). Mirroring the recognition of social relationships as an essential part or cause of happiness (Bojanowska & Zalewska, 2016), prior studies have demonstrated the link between marriage and better mental and physical health and well-being (e. g., Braithwaite & Holt-Lunstad, 2017; Girme et al., 2016; Girme et al., 2022; Robles et al., 2014). For instance, individuals in marriages were found to report better self-assessed health and lower rates of long-term illness and depression than unmarried people (Williams & Umberson, 2004). Furthermore, according to a study by Lucas et al. (2003), married people experienced higher subjective well-being than their unmarried counterparts after diverse demographic variables were controlled for. Furthermore, greater time spent in marriage was related to higher well-being toward the end of life, and individuals who spent much of their lives single and those who experienced many relationship status transitions reported similar levels of well-being (Purol et al., 2020). The beneficial role of partnership for health outcomes has also been demonstrated for nonmarital relationships (e. g., dating relationships and cohabitation). For instance, college students in committed nonmarital unions experienced fewer mental health problems and were less likely to be overweight/ obese than their single peers (Braithwaite et al., 2010). The decreased life satisfaction observed among single adults has been found to be related not only to lower perceived social support but also to greater experiences of negative treatment and discrimination than those experienced by partnered individuals (Girme et al., 2022). At the same time, in a recent study (Jebb et al., 2020), marriage was shown to have very small links with subjective well-being in representative cross-sections from 166 nations (more than 1.7 million respondents). In addition, the effect of marriage on happiness has been indicated to be slightly larger than the effects of education and age on subjective well-being, with this effect suggested to be partially explained by the notion that happier individuals are more likely to attract partners (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). However, if we do not compare single people with coupled people, can we claim that single people are happy? What factors are related to happiness among

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

43

Happiness of singles

single people in Europe? We seek the answers to these questions in Chapter 5, but these substantial considerations are first proceeded by a description of the data collected in the ESS in regard to the question ‘Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?’ with options ranging from 0 (‘extremely unhappy’) to 10 (‘extremely happy’)2. Table 11 displays the mean values and SDs for happiness across countries calculated from the ESS data throughout all the rounds. The means are sorted from lowest to highest. Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations of Happiness by Country Happiness No. Country 1 Bulgaria 2 Ukraine 3 Russia 4 Turkey 5 Lithuania 6 Hungary 7 Greece 8 Latvia 9 Portugal 10 Slovakia 11 Czechia 12 Estonia 13 France 14 Poland 15 Croatia 16 Italy 17 Germany 18 Slovenia 19 Cyprus 20 United Kingdom 21 Ireland 22 Austria 23 Spain 24 Israel 25 Sweden 26 Netherlands 27 Belgium 28 Norway 29 Luxemburg 30 Finland 31 Switzerland 32 Iceland 33 Denmark

N

M

SD

3754 391) 5686 1104 4037 5152 3500 814 5224 3461 6403 5074 5326 5220 1813 2623 7998 3770 1530 7644 7357 5262 5685 4391 4931 5929 4935 4230 935 5104) 5184 830 3311

4.89 5.09 5.79 5.81 5.93 5.94 6.12 6.15 6.21 6.26 6.48 6.48 6.65 6.65 6.67 6.73 6.87 6.95 7.01 7.09 7.13 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.31 7.34 7.34 7.52 7.58 7.66 7.78 7.81 7.90

2.67 2.49 2.26 2.74 2.21 2.38 2.22 2.18 2.10 2.02 2.04 2.13 1.92 2.24 2.36 1.96 2.03 2.11 2.02 2.06 1.98 1.97 1.86 2.14 1.77 1.55 1.71 1.71 1.99 1.63 1.62 1.65 1.65

2 Three other options were as follows: 77 (refusal), 88 (‘don’t know’) and 99 (no answer).

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

44

Subjective well-being and general health of single people

As Table 11 shows, the lowest mean level of happiness (M = 4.89) is reported by single people in Bulgaria and the highest (M = 7.90) by single people in Denmark. Table 12 displays the mean values and SDs for happiness across the nine ESS rounds. The mean level of happiness calculated for all nine ESS rounds for all the samples was estimated to be 7.22 (SD = 2.01). Table 12 Total Means and Standard Deviations of Happiness by ESS Round Happiness ESS Round Year collected All Nine EES Rounds Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

N 142132

M 6.78

SD 2.15

12858 14666 14545 18053 18338 18479 13966 15306 15921

6.96 6.79 6.68 6.58 6.50 6.67 6.95 7.01 6.99

2.11 2.16 2.20 2.23 2.25 2.19 2.06 1.99 2.05

As Table 12 shows, the initial mean level of happiness of single people is M = 6.96 in Round 1 (2002) and M = 6.99 in Round 9. An ANOVA reveals several significant differences in the mean levels of happiness between ESS rounds, F(8, 142123) = 132.63, p =.000, η2 =.01; however, these differences are very small in magnitude. Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test reveal significant differences in the mean levels of happiness between ESS rounds; however, there is no difference between the mean levels of happiness measured in Round 1 and Round 9.

Social life of singles Sarkisian and Gerstel (2016) noted that in the literature, there exists a debate termed ‘singlehood as isolating versus integrative’. The authors indicated that on the one hand, singlehood has been considered to be related to isolation, loneliness and limited social ties, in contrast to marriage, which is viewed ‘as the primary building block of community, an institution fostering social integration’ (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016, p. 362). On the other hand, singlehood has been suggested to promote relationships, in contrast to marriage, which has been considered to privatize intimacy and compete with or even weaken other relationships (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016). Studies have shown that single individuals have more friends and spend more time with friends (e. g., Gillespie et al., 2014;

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

45

Social life of singles

Wenger et al., 2007) and are more likely to socialize (e. g., Ha, 2008) and exchange help (Leibler & Sandefur, 2002) than married individuals. One study found the opposite pattern, i. e., single individuals reporting less contact with best friends than coupled individuals (Brumbaugh, 2017). Furthermore, Kislev (2020a), in his analysis of the data gathered in the ESS in the period between 2002 and 2016, compared unmarried and coupled individuals in the domain of social capital and demonstrated that unmarried people were more sociable than coupled people. Single individuals have been recognized to have long-lasting friendships (Kislev, 2020b) and develop attachment relationships with friends (Brumbaugh, 2017). Furthermore, high-quality friendships have been shown to particularly enhance psychological health and well-being among single people (Ermer & Proulx, 2019). Moreover, single individuals were also found to invest more in their friendships than coupled individuals (Fisher et al., 2021). This investment in friendship was a predictor of higher friendship quality and self-esteem over time. In addition, while the friendship quality of coupled individuals decreased over a 2-year interval, the friendship quality of single individuals remained stable over this period (Fisher et al., 2021). Some studies revealed that single people receive more support from their parents (e. g., Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004) and have greater contact with and support from siblings than married individuals (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016). Sarkisian and Gerstel (2016) used national U.S. datasets—the General Social Survey (GSS; 2000, 2004, 2006, 2012) and the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH; 1992–1994)—to demonstrate that single respondents were more likely to have contact with and obtain help from their parents or siblings than married respondents and that they were more likely to provide help to, obtain help from, or socialize with neighbors or friends than married individuals. Finally, Kislev (2020a), in his analysis, showed that social capital (social activities frequency and frequency of social meetings) enhances happiness among single people to a higher degree than among people in cohabitation and marital relationships. Regarding the general pattern showing that friend and sibling relationships may have a stronger influence on single individuals’ lives than on coupled individuals’ lives (Brumbaugh, 2017), we identified the data collected in the ESS concerning 1) frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues; 2) having anyone to discuss intimate and personal matters with; 3) the number of people with whom a person can discuss intimate and personal matters; and 4) frequency of taking part in social activities. These data offer an excellent opportunity to look at the issue of nonromantic relationships among single adults.

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

46

Subjective well-being and general health of single people

Social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues The frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues was assessed by the following question ‘How often do you meet socially with friends, relatives or work colleagues?’ with the possible options as follows: 1 = ‘Never’; 2 = ‘Less than once a month’; 3 = ‘Once a month’; 4 = ‘Several times a month’; 5 = ‘Once a week’; 6 = ‘Several times a week’; 7 = ‘Every day’; 8 = ‘Don’t know’. Table 13 displays the mean values and SDs for the frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues across countries calculated from the data collected in each ESS round in a given country. The means are sorted from lowest to highest. Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Social Meetings with Friends, Relatives or Colleagues by Country Frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues No. Country 1 Hungary 2 Lithuania 3 Greece 4 Cyprus 5 Russia 6 Estonia 7 Poland 8 Ukraine 9 Latvia 10 Czechia 11 Bulgaria 12 Turkey 13 Slovenia 14 Ireland 15 Slovakia 16 Germany 17 Austria 18 United Kingdom 19 Italy 20 Finland 21 Luxemburg 22 France 23 Israel 24 Belgium 25 Switzerland 26 Croatia 27 Netherlands 28 Spain 29 Sweden 30 Denmark

N

M

SD

5152 4037 3500 1530 5686 5074 5220 3915 814 6403 3754 1104 3770 7357 3461 7998 5262 7644 2623) 5104 935 5326 4391 4935 5184 1813 5929 5685 4931 3311

3.70 4.08 4.17 4.38 4.49 4.53 4.58 4.60 4.71 4.74 4.84 4.88 4.92 4.93 4.98 5.10 5.16 5.19 5.19 5.33 5.34 5.37 5.38 5.41 5.45 5.52 5.54 5.56 5.69 5.71

1.82 1.76 1.83 1.78 1.77 1.67 1.72 1.76 1.69 1.56 1.81 1.75 1.63 1.59 1.69 1.47 1.45 1.55 1.64 1.38 1.61 1.44 1.55 1.44 1.28 1.61 1.31 1.49 1.31 1.20

Open Access Publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

© 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783847115328 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737015325

47

Social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues

Table 13 (Continued) Frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues No.

Country

N

M

SD

31 32 33

Iceland Portugal Norway

830 5224 4230

5.73 5.75 5.84

1.29 1.61 1.27

As Table 13 shows, the lowest mean level of frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues (M = 3.70) (3 = ‘Once a month’; 4 = ‘Several times a month’) is reported by single people in Hungary, whereas the highest (M = 5.84) (5 = ‘Once a week’; 6 = ‘Several times a week’) is reported by single people in Denmark. Table 14 displays the mean values and SDs for the frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues in each ESS round. Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Social Meetings with Friends, Relatives or Colleagues by ESS Round Frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues ESS Round Year collected All Nine EES Rounds Round 1 2002 Round 2 2004 Round 3 2006 Round 4 2008 Round 5 2010 Round 6 2012 Round 7 2014 Round 8 2016 Round 9 2018

N 14132 12858 14666 14545 18053 18338 18479 13966 15306 15921

M 5.06 5.26 5.12 5.20 5.09 4.99 4.98 5.00 4.96 4.98

SD 1.64 1.61 1.64 1.63 1.65) 1.69 1.68 1.60) 1.61 1.63

As Table 14 shows, the initial mean level of frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues was M = 5.26 in Round 1 (2002) and M = 4.98 in Round 9. An ANOVA reveals several significant differences in the mean levels of frequency of social meetings with friends, relatives or colleagues between ESS rounds, F(8,141318) = 61.60, p