In What Domains Does Entering a Romantic Relationship Boost Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation

Abstract

Research shows higher well-being for partnered versus single individuals, but existing studies assess limited outcomes and do not use fully appropriate analytic methods. We assessed single people’s well-being at two timepoints 6 months apart (N = 3,165) and assessed who did and did not remain single. There were small selection effects such that singles higher in life satisfaction and sexual satisfaction were more likely to partner. Stable partnership (as opposed to staying single or partnering then breaking up) was related to relatively small increases in life satisfaction, moderate decreases in loneliness, and larger increases in sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with relationship status. On some variables, effects were larger for men and for those with stronger initial desire for a partner. These data suggest that, for singles sufficiently motivated to partner, partnering may cause increases in well-being, especially for well-being domains like sexual satisfaction that are particularly tied to relationship status.

Keywords

singlehood romantic relationships well-being longitudinal relationship status

Living without a romantic partner has become an increasingly visible option (Kislev, 2019; Traister, 2016). This trend has raised concerns for societal health and well-being (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Wilcox, 2024), but do romantic relationships cause increases in well-being? Researchers question a causal role in the link between relationship status and well-being (DePaulo, 2023), suggesting that social connection can be adequately addressed through non-romantic relationships (Girme et al., 2023). Social structural perspectives suggest that the narrative that romantic relationships are crucial to well-being stems from social norms promoting ideology of marriage and family (Day et al., 2011; DePaulo & Morris, 2005) that have led society, including psychology researchers, to overvalue romantic connection (DePaulo, 2023).

Research attention to singlehood has been important for testing assumptions about single life and attending to the diversity of singles’ experiences (Girme et al., 2023). This research has demonstrated that, indeed, some singles are as happy as the happiest partnered individuals (Walsh et al., 2023) and pointed to factors that are related to higher levels of well-being in singlehood including family, friend, and sexual satisfaction (Dykstra, 1995; Fisher et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021), attachment security (MacDonald & Park, 2022; Pepping et al., 2024), lower desire for a partner (Kislev, 2021), older age (Böger & Huxhold, 2018; Park et al., 2022), and being a woman (Hill Roy et al., 2023; Hoan & MacDonald, 2024a; Wahring et al., 2024). Still, the cross-sectional data are consistent in showing that the average person in a committed romantic relationship reports higher well-being than the average single person (Buecker et al., 2020; Diener et al., 2000; Glenn & Weaver, 1979; Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b; Stronge et al., 2019).

Are these differences the result of committed romantic relationships causing increases in well-being? Research has suggested that some effects may be attributable to pre-existing individual differences (i.e., selection effects) rather than caused by partnering. For example, individuals higher in extraversion—robustly associated with well-being generally (e.g., Steel et al., 2008)—are more likely to be romantically partnered (Chopik et al., 2023; Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b), seemingly not because of extraversion increasing after entering a relationship (Bühler et al., 2024). In replicated, cross-sectional data, higher well-being for partnered versus single participants remained after controlling for Big Five personality variables, suggesting that selection effects—at least those linked to the Big Five—may not fully account for relationship status effects (Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b). However, effects in this research varied across different outcome variables. Hoan and MacDonald (2024b) showed that variance in sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with relationship status—two domains seemingly strongly tied to being in a romantic relationship—was relatively strongly accounted for by relationship status above and beyond personality. Although relationship status also accounted for variance in life satisfaction above and beyond personality, this effect was less strong, perhaps because life satisfaction is tied to multiple domains beyond relationship status (Diener, 1984; Rojas, 2006).

Longitudinal data could be useful in clarifying a causal role for romantic partnering in well-being. DePaulo (2023; DePaulo & Morris, 2005) has argued that longitudinal data do not support such a causal role for relationship status. However, these arguments are based on studies investigating the transition to marriage rather than a shift from singlehood to romantic partnership (e.g., Luhmann et al., 2012). Longitudinal data on transition from singlehood to partnership are rarer, but existing research has demonstrated increases in life satisfaction from pre- to post-partnering (Bühler et al., 2024; Krämer et al., 2025; Park, MacDonald, & Impett, 2023; Soons et al., 2009). However, longitudinal data alone are not enough to make causal inferences, as they cannot account for confounding variables in the same way that random assignment can, which potentially leads to selection bias (Rohrer & Murayama, 2023). For example, increases in well-being from pre- to post-partnering might be a result of a certain type of person both being more likely to increase in well-being over time and being more likely to partner. As such, propensity score methods attempt to mitigate this bias by accounting for confounding variables across groups (Kurz et al., 2024) and are often used to support causal inferences of treatment effects when randomization is not feasible (Austin et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2020).

In addition, the strength of the effect of partnering on well-being may depend on the degree to which the well-being domain is tied to relationship status (Hoan & MacDonald, 2024b). To our knowledge, no longitudinal evidence is available examining the extent to which partnering is related to change in well-being on indicators more specifically tied to relationship status (e.g., sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with relationship status), or on indicators related to relational connection generally but not romantic connection specifically (e.g., loneliness). Furthermore, recent evidence has suggested that gender plays a role in the link between relationship status and well-being. Hoan and MacDonald (2024a) found that single women evidence higher well-being than single men, an effect that was particularly pronounced for relationship status satisfaction. Furthermore, in a subset of these data containing partnered participants, partnered women did not differ from partnered men in relationship status satisfaction, suggesting that men may experience greater increases in satisfaction with their relationship status than women when they partner (see also Stronge et al., 2019; Wahring et al., 2025; cf. Krämer et al., 2025). Similarly, given that individuals higher in desire for a partner are also relatively low in satisfaction with singlehood (Kislev, 2021), higher desire for a partner may predict stronger well-being increases following partnering.

In the present research, we used longitudinal data from a larger project studying motivations for relationship pursuit (MacDonald et al., 2025) analyzed via propensity score weighting to examine changes in well-being after a transition to a romantic relationship, and whether such changes vary across different well-being indicators. These data allow us to test both for the presence of selection effects (does higher well-being predict transition to partnership?) and for changes in our well-being variables (life satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, relationship status satisfaction, and loneliness) across those who did and did not partner, as well as examining gender and desire for a partner as potential moderators.

Method

Participants

Time 1 Sample

Participants were recruited on Prolific. The study was advertised as a study on “Singlehood and Relationship Experiences” and was visible only to individuals who had indicated when signing up with Prolific that they were single. A total of 4,746 participants participated online via Qualtrics in exchange for monetary compensation. Sample size was determined to fulfill the statistical power needed for MacDonald et al. (2025). Analyses in the current paper were conducted capitalizing on remaining unanalyzed questions. Participants were between 18 and 39 years of age (we expected participants younger than 40 to be more likely to change relationship status; Park et al., 2022) and had been single for at least 3 months. After excluding ineligible individuals and those missing key measures, the Time 1 sample consisted of 4,023 participants.

Time 2 Sample

Participants who had completed the Time 1 survey were contacted approximately 6 months later for the follow-up survey. A total of 3,363 participants completed the follow-up survey, with 3,165 successfully matched to their initial survey data. See Supplemental Material detailing the exclusion criteria used at Time 1 and Time 2 samples.

Final Sample

The final analytic sample consisted of 3,165 individuals who had completed all key measures at both timepoints (M_age = 24.61, SD = 5.05). Of these participants, 470 (14.85%) had entered a new romantic relationship that was still intact at Time 2, 325 (10.29%) participants who entered a new romantic relationship that was subsequently terminated between Time 1 and Time 2, and 2,370 (74.88%) stayed single between Time 1 and Time 2. The participants were primarily heterosexual (n = 2,217; 70.05%) and White (n = 1,779; 56.21%), with an approximately equal number of men (n = 1,547; 48.88%) and women (n = 1,512; 47.77%). See Table 1 for demographic breakdown.

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Demographic Category	n (%)
Gender identity
Man	1,547 (48.88)
Woman	1,512 (47.77)
Preferred not to say	12 (0.38)
Other	94 (2.97)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	2,217 (70.05)
Gay	129 (4.08)
Lesbian	72 (2.27)
Bisexual	386 (12.20)
Queer	87 (2.75)
Uncertain or questioning	153 (4.83)
Choose not to answer	22 (0.70)
Other	99 (3.13)
Ethnicity/Race
White	1,779 (56.21)
Latino/Hispanic	380 (12.01)
Middle Eastern	72 (2.27)
African	382 (12.07)
Caribbean	16 (0.51)
South Asian	99 (3.13)
East Asian	120 (3.79)
Multiethnic	118 (3.73)
Other	199 (6.29)

We conducted simulated sensitivity power analyses to calculate the smallest unstandardized fixed effects of our predictors (i.e., minimal detectable effect of b) that could be reliably detected at 80% power, based on our analysis and sample size. Using 1,000 iterations, we found that all significant fixed effects were detectable with 80% power (see Supplemental Material for more details and plots of power curves).

Transparency and Openness

All data, analysis code, and research materials are available at https://osf.io/62p8c/?view_only=2b9888e646904e90be1871ff9ff3d81f. Data were analyzed using RStudio, version 2024.12.0+467 (RStudio Team, 2024), and the analyses used the packages lme4 (version 1.1-35.3; Bates et al., 2015), lmerTest (version 3.1-3; Kuznetsova et al., 2017), PSweight (version 2.1.0; Zhou et al., 2025), and modelbased (version 0.10.0; Makowski et al., 2020). This study’s design and its analysis were not preregistered.

Measures

Relationship Status

At each timepoint, participants responded yes or no to the question, “Are you currently in a romantic relationship?” Participants who reported being in a romantic relationship at Time 2 were categorized as “Remained Partnered” (i.e., they remained partnered at Time 2). Those who were not in a relationship at Time 2 were asked whether they had been in a romantic relationship within the past 6 months. If they said they had a relationship during that period (i.e., between Time 1 and Time 2), they were categorized as “Briefly Partnered.” Participants who were not partnered at all across the study were categorized as “Stayed Single.”

Life satisfaction was measured with the question “In general, how satisfied are you with your life?” (Cheung & Lucas, 2014) on a four-point scale, from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 4 (Very Satisfied). A single item was used for this and subsequent measures to minimize demands on participant time and maximize retention rates. See the Supplemental Table 1S for a correlation table of primary variables, age, and gender.

Sexual satisfaction was measured with the question “Overall, how satisfied are you with your sex life?” (Park & MacDonald, 2022) on a seven-point scale, from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 7 (Very Satisfied).

Relationship status satisfaction was measured with an item taken from Lehmann et al. (2015), “In general, how satisfied are you with your current relationship status?” on a seven-point scale, from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 7 (Very Satisfied).

Loneliness was measured with the UCLA Loneliness Scale, adapted for large-scale social surveys (Hughes et al., 2004). The scale has three items (e.g., “How often do you feel that you lack companionship”) on a four-point scale, from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often); α_Time1 = .80, α_Time2 = .83.

Desire for a partner was measured with the item “I want to have a romantic partner” (MacDonald & Park, 2022) on a seven-point scale, from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Results

We applied propensity score weighting to estimate the probability of group membership (i.e., stayed single, remained partnered, or briefly partnered) based on covariates available in the dataset that are related to well-being or to both well-being and relationship status (Kurz et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2021). These covariates include age, gender, desire for a partner, time stayed single, self-compassion, race, and sexual orientation (see Supplemental Material for details on time-stayed-single and self-compassion). Propensity scores were calculated from these covariates and used as weights in the regression model to reweight participants’ contributions (Olmos & Govindasamy, 2015). Covariate balance assessments showed that overlap weights achieved the best covariate balance (such that the groups are comparable), with all standardized mean differences below the threshold of 0.10 (Li et al., 2018; Li & Li, 2019).

We used multilevel modeling to compare well-being differences across time for participants in the three statuses. Data were organized in long format (timepoints nested within participant), such that there were two rows of data per participant. Timepoint (Time 1=baseline survey; Time 2=follow-up survey), Change in Relationship Status (“Stayed Single,” “Briefly Partnered,” and “Remained Partnered”), and the Timepoint*Status interaction were included as predictors in each model. Time was dummy coded, and overlap weights were also included in the models.

Life satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, relationship status satisfaction, and loneliness were the four outcome variables (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics). Figures 1 –4 display these outcomes for the three groups at Time 1 and Time 2. We entered each of the four well-being indicators as the outcome variable in separate models. We then used simple slope analyses to tease apart changes related to entering a relationship (from Time 1 to Time 2) from pre-existing individual differences (group differences at Time 1). Cohen’s d was used to calculate standardized mean differences between groups (Cohen, 1969), and partial R² values were calculated to estimate the variance uniquely explained by each predictor (Edwards et al., 2008).

Table 2

Well-Being for Participants at Each Timepoint

	Time 1		Time 2		T1 to T2 Change
Measure and Status	M	SD _BP	M	SD _BP	M	SD _WP
Life satisfaction (4-point)
Stayed Single	2.55	0.77	2.55	0.78	0.00	0.67
Remained Partnered	2.74	0.81	2.94	0.72	0.20	0.80
Briefly Partnered	2.67	0.78	2.68	0.77	0.01	0.74
Sexual Satisfaction (7-point)
Stayed Single	3.28	1.60	3.20	1.60	−0.08	1.35
Remained Partnered	3.71	1.73	5.37	1.50	1.66	2.09
Briefly Partnered	3.54	1.70	3.67	1.59	0.12	1.57
Relationship status satisfaction (4-point)
Stayed Single	2.43	0.95	2.26	0.92	−0.17	0.82
Remained Partnered	2.45	0.91	3.36	0.73	0.90	1.10
Briefly Partnered	2.36	0.89	2.21	0.91	−0.15	0.90
Loneliness (4-point)
Stayed Single	2.86	0.76	2.83	0.74	−0.03	0.62
Remained Partnered	2.81	0.75	2.21	0.73	−0.60	0.84
Briefly Partnered	2.84	0.72	2.87	0.72	0.03	0.59

Note. T1 to T2 Change was calculated as Time 2 value minus Time 1 value. SD_BP = between-person standard deviation; SD_WP = within-person standard deviation.

Figure 1

Life Satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2

Figure 2

Sexual Satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2

Figure 3

Relationship Status Satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2

Figure 4

Loneliness at Time 1 and Time 2

Well-Being Differences at Each Timepoint

Comparing Stayed Single With Remained Partnered Groups

Model results are presented in Table 3. We found significant interactions between relationship status change and timepoint for all four outcomes, suggesting that people experienced different changes in well-being depending on whether or not they were consistently single or partnered at Time 2. Looking at simple slopes across groups for each timepoint, at Time 1, when all participants were single, there were no significant differences in relationship status satisfaction (b = .06, SE = .04, p = .272, d = 0.02) and loneliness (b = −.06, SE = .03, p = .204, d = −0.07) between those who later entered a relationship and those who stayed single. However, participants who later entered a relationship reported higher life satisfaction (b = .13, SE = .04, p < .001, d = 0.24) and sexual satisfaction (b = .40, SE = .07, p < .001, d = 0.26) than those who stayed single, suggesting that participants who would later enter a relationship were already somewhat more satisfied with their sex lives and lives overall than those who stayed single. At Time 2, participants who remained in a relationship had significantly higher life satisfaction (b = .36, SE = .04, p < .001, d = 0.51), sexual satisfaction (b = 2.20, SE = .07, p < .001, d = 1.37), and relationship status satisfaction (b = 1.13, SE = .04, p < .001, d = 1.23), as well as significantly lower loneliness (b = −.62, SE = .03, p < .001, d = −0.83) than those who stayed single. These differences indicate that entering and remaining in a relationship was associated with overall higher well-being compared to staying single, with a medium-sized difference in life satisfaction, a large difference in loneliness, with the relatively largest differences in sexual satisfaction and relationship status satisfaction.

Table 3

Well-Being Differences Over Time With Stayed Single Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Model 1: Life satisfaction
Intercept	2.60	.02	<.001	[2.57, 2.64]
Remained Partnered	.13	.04	<.001	[.06, .20]
Briefly Partnered	.07	.04	.077	[−.01, .15]
Timepoint	−.02	.02	.297	[−.06, .02]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	.24	.03	<.001	[.18, .30]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.03	.03	.278	[−.03, .09]
Model 2: Sexual satisfaction
Intercept	3.28	.04	<.001	[3.20, 3.37]
Remained Partnered	.40	.07	<.001	[.25, .55]
Briefly Partnered	.26	.08	.002	[.10, .42]
Timepoint	−.11	.05	.025	[−.21, −.01]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.80	.07	<.001	[1.67, 1.94]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.24	.07	<.001	[.11, .38]
Model 3: Relationship status satisfaction
Intercept	2.39	.02	<.001	[2.34, 2.44]
Remained Partnered	.06	.04	.136	[−.02, .14]
Briefly Partnered	−.03	.04	.465	[−.12, .05]
Timepoint	−.17	.03	<.001	[−.22, −.12]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.07	.04	<.001	[1.00, 1.15]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.02	.04	.550	[−.05, .10]
Model 4: Loneliness
Intercept	2.85	.02	<.001	[2.82, .2.89]
Remained Partnered	−.06	.03	.102	[−.12, .01]
Briefly Partnered	−.01	.04	.812	[−.08, .06]
Timepoint	−.01	.02	.732	[−.05, .03]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	−.56	.03	<.001	[−.62, −.51]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.03	.03	.351	[−.03, .08]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Comparing Briefly Partnered With Remained Partnered Groups

Model results are shown in Table 4. Significant interactions between relationship status change and timepoint emerged for all four outcomes, suggesting that people who started a relationship experienced different changes in well-being depending on whether or not they exited that relationship before Time 2. Examining the simple slope for each group at Time 1, when all participants were single, no significant differences emerged for life satisfaction (b = .06, SE = .05, p = .206, d = 0.08), sexual satisfaction (b = .14, SE = .09, p = .123, d = 0.09), relationship status satisfaction (b = .09, SE = .05, p = .126, d = 0.10), or loneliness (b = −.05, SE = .04, p = .561, d = −0.04). However, by Time 2, participants who remained in their new relationships had significantly higher life satisfaction (b = .26, SE = .05, p < .001, d = 0.35), sexual satisfaction (b = 1.70, SE = .09, p < .001, d = 1.11), and relationship status satisfaction (b = 1.14, SE = .05, p < .001, d = 1.42), as well as significantly lower loneliness (b = −.64, SE = .04, p < .001, d = −0.90) compared to those who exited a relationship. These differences suggested that entering and remaining in a relationship was associated with greater overall satisfaction and less loneliness compared to starting and ending one, and these well-being changes were larger for relationship status relevant domains.

Table 4

Well-Being Differences Over Time With Briefly Partnered Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Model 1: Life satisfaction
Intercept	2.67	.03	<.001	[2.61, 2.74]
Stayed Single	−.07	.04	.077	[−.15, .01]
Remained Partnered	.06	.04	.206	[−.03, .15]
Timepoint	.01	.02	.623	[−.03, .05]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.03	.03	.278	[−.09, .03]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	.21	.03	<.001	[.15, .26]
Model 2: Sexual satisfaction
Intercept	3.54	.07	<.001	[3.40, 3.68]
Stayed Single	−.26	.08	.002	[−.42, −.10]
Remained Partnered	.14	.09	.123	[−.04, .32]
Timepoint	.14	.05	.006	[.04, .23]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.24	.07	<.001	[−.38, −.11]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.56	.07	<.001	[1.42, 1.69]
Model 3: Relationship status satisfaction
Intercept	2.36	.04	<.001	[2.28, 2.43]
Stayed Single	.03	.04	.465	[−.05, .12]
Remained Partnered	.09	.05	.063	[−.01, .19]
Timepoint	−.15	.03	<.001	[−.20, −.09]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.02	.04	.550	[−.10, .05]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.05	.04	<.001	[.97, 1.13]
Model 4: Loneliness
Intercept	2.84	.03	<.001	[2.78, 2.91]
Stayed Single	.01	.04	.812	[−.06, .08]
Remained Partnered	−.05	.04	.281	[−.13, .04]
Timepoint	.02	.02	.329	[−.02, .06]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.03	.03	.351	[−.08, .03]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	−.59	.03	<.001	[−.65, −.53]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Comparing Stayed Single With Briefly Partnered Groups

Model results are presented in Table 3. Participants who briefly partnered showed no differences from participants who stayed single regarding changes in life satisfaction (b = .03, SE = .03, p = .278), relationship status satisfaction(b = .02, SE = .04, p = .550) and loneliness (b = .03, SE = .03, p = .351). Although simple slope analyses showed that at Time 1, participants who briefly partnered reported higher sexual satisfaction (b = .26, SE = .08, p = .002,d = 0.17), the difference was small enough to be negligible. In contrast, at Time 2, participants who briefly partnered reported greater sexual satisfaction than those who stayed single (b = .50, SE = .08, p < .001, d = 0.29).

Well-Being Changes Across Time for All Three Groups

Well-being changes over time for all three groups are reported in Table 5. Participants who entered and remained in a relationship experienced increases in life satisfaction (b = .22, SE = .02, p < .001, d = 0.26), sexual satisfaction (b = 1.69, SE = .05, p < .001, d = 1.03), and relationship status satisfaction (b = .90, SE = .03, p < .001, d = 1.09), as well as decreases in loneliness (b = −.57, SE = .02, p < .001, d = −0.80) between Time 1 and Time 2. The increase in life satisfaction was relatively small, whereas the increases in sexual satisfaction and current relationship status satisfaction, as well as the decrease in loneliness, all had medium-to-large standardized mean differences.

Table 5

Well-Being Differences Over Time for Each Relationship Status

Status	b	SE	t	p	p_adj	95% CI
Model 1: Life satisfaction
Stayed Single	−.02	.02	−1.04	.297	.445	[−.06, .02]
Remain Partnered	.22	.02	10.13	<.001	<.001	[.17, .26]
Briefly Partnered	.01	.02	0.49	.623	.623	[−.03, .05]
Model 2: Sexual satisfaction
Stayed Single	−.11	.05	−2.24	.025	.025	[−.21, −.01]
Remain Partnered	1.69	.05	34.62	<.001	<.001	[1.60, 1.79]
Briefly Partnered	.14	.05	2.77	.006	.008	[.04, .23]
Model 3: Relationship status satisfaction
Stayed Single	−.17	.03	−6.19	<.001	<.001	[−.22, .12]
Remain Partnered	.90	.03	32.85	<.001	<.001	[.85, .96]
Briefly Partnered	−.15	.03	−5.34	<.001	<.001	[−.20, −.09]
Model 4: Loneliness
Stayed Single	−.01	.02	−0.34	.732	.732	[−.05, .03]
Remain Partnered	−.57	.02	−28.06	<.001	<.001	[−.61, −.53]
Briefly Partnered	.02	.02	0.98	.329	.493	[−.02, .06]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Participants who briefly entered and exited a relationship experienced no significant change in life satisfaction(b = .01, SE = .02, p = .623, d = 0.01) or loneliness (b = .02, SE = .02, p = .493, d = 0.04) from Time 1 to Time 2. They reported a significant increase in sexual satisfaction (b = .14, SE = .05, p = .008, d = 0.07) and a significant decrease in current relationship status satisfaction (b = −.15, SE = .03, p < .001, d = −0.17); however, both changes were again quite small in terms of effect size.

Participants who stayed single throughout the study did not experience significant changes in life satisfaction(b = −.02, SE = .02, p = .445, d = 0.00) or loneliness(b = −.01, SE = .02, p = .732, d = −0.04). They experienced significant decreases in sexual satisfaction (b = −.11, SE = .05, p = .025, d = −0.05) and current relationship status satisfaction (b = −.17, SE = .03, p < .001, d = −0.18); however, these changes were small in magnitude. Overall, well-being remained relatively stable for single participants, both those who remained single as well as those who briefly partnered and then broke up during the study.

Variance Explained by Status and Time

In addition to examining the magnitude of differences across comparisons using Cohen’s d, we also examined the degree to which well-being could be explained by our predictors (i.e., relationship status, time, and their interaction; Table 6). At the model level, the proportion of variance explained by relationship status and timepoint differed across outcomes. The interaction term between relationship status and timepoint explained an additional 1% of the variance in life satisfaction (R ² = .01), suggesting that changes in relationship status only minimally contributed to variability in life satisfaction. In contrast, the relationship status*timepoint interaction term explained 9% of the variance in loneliness (R ² = .09), 14% of the variance in sexual satisfaction (R ² = .14), and 16% of the variance in relationship status satisfaction (R ² = .16), all suggesting a medium-sized proportion of variance explained in these models. Thus, changes in relationship status explained a larger proportion of variation in these relationship-related well-being domains than in life satisfaction.

Table 6

Variance Explained by Each Predictor for the Four Outcomes

Predictors	Life satisfaction	Sexual satisfaction	Relationship status satisfaction	Loneliness
Status	.01	.01	.00	.00
Timepoint	.01	.07	.03	.05
Status*Timepoint	.01	.14	.16	.09

Moderation Analyses

To examine moderation by gender and desire, each was excluded from the propensity score weighting procedure and entered separately as a predictor in its respective multilevel model.

Gender

Gender was coded as 0 for men and 1 for women. There were significant three-variable interactions (gender*timepoint*relationship status) predicting life satisfaction (0.41% variance explained; Table 7) and relationship status satisfaction (0.72% variance explained; Tables 8 and 9). Men who remained in new relationships had a greater increase in life satisfaction (b = .31, SE = .03. p < .001, d = 0.37) than women (b = .13, SE = .03, p < .001, d = 0.18). Similarly, men who remained in new relationships had a greater increase in relationship status satisfaction (b =1.05, SE = .04, p < .001, d = 1.27) than women (b = .77, SE = .04, p < .001, d = 0.97). In addition, men experienced small decreases in relationship status satisfaction when they stayed single (b = −.19, SE = .04, p < .001, d = −0.21) or were briefly partnered (b = −.22, SE = .04, p < .001, d = −0.25). In contrast, women in those groups also showed statistically significant decreases, but the effect sizes were smaller to the point of being negligible: b = −.16, SE = .04, p < .001, d = −0.15 for those stayed single and b = −.09, SE = .04, p = .030, d = −0.10 for those who were briefly partnered. There were no three-variable moderations with gender predicting sexual satisfaction or loneliness.

Table 7

Gender Moderation of Life Satisfaction Differences With Stayed Single Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Intercept	2.59	.03	<.001	[2.53, 2.64]
Remained Partnered	.03	.05	.513	[−.07, 14]
Briefly Partnered	.02	.06	.775	[−.09, .12]
Timepoint	−.05	.03	.073	[−.11, .01]
Gender	.05	.04	.192	[−.03, .13]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	.37	.04	.000	[.28, .45]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.09	.04	.035	[.01, .18]
Remained Partnered*Gender	.15	.07	.032	[.01, .29]
Briefly Partnered*Gender	.14	.08	.068	[−.01, .30]
Timepoint*Gender	.06	.04	.169	[−.03, .14]
Remained PartneredTimepointGender	−.24	.06	<.001	[−.36, −.12]
Briefly PartneredTimepointGender	−.14	.06	.025	[−.26, −.02]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 8

Gender Moderation of Current Relationship Status Satisfaction Differences With Stayed Single Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Intercept	2.25	.03	<.001	[2.19, 2.32]
Remained Partnered	.03	.06	.616	[−.09, .15]
Briefly Partnered	.02	.06	.749	[−.10, .14]
Timepoint	−.19	.04	<.001	[−.27, −0.11]
Gender	.28	.05	<.001	[.18, .37]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.23	.06	<.001	[1.12, 1.35]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	−.03	.06	.603	[−.14, .08]
Remained Partnered*Gender	.02	.08	.802	[−.14, .18]
Briefly Partnered*Gender	−.11	.09	.224	[−.28, .07]
Timepoint*Gender	.03	.06	.595	[−.08, .14]
Remained PartneredTimepointGender	−.30	.08	<.001	[−.46, −.15]
Briefly PartneredTimepointGender	.10	.08	.197	[−.05, .26]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 9

Gender Moderation of Current Relationship Status Satisfaction Differences With Briefly Partnered Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Intercept	2.27	.05	<.001	[2.17, 2.38]
Stayed Single	−.02	.06	.749	[−.14, .10]
Remained Partnered	.01	.07	.891	[−.13, .15]
Timepoint	−.22	.04	<.001	[−.29, −.14]
Gender	.17	.08	.024	[.02, .32]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	.03	.06	.603	[−.08, .14]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.26	.06	<.001	[1.15, 1.37]
Stayed Single*Gender	.11	.09	.224	[−.07, .28]
Remained Partnered*Gender	.13	.10	.201	[−.07, .33]
Timepoint*Gender	.13	.06	.019	[.02, .24]
Stayed SingleTimepointGender	−.10	.08	.197	[−.26, .05]
Remained PartneredTimepointGender	−.41	.08	<.001	[−.56, −.25]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Desire for a Partner

There were significant three-variable interactions (desire*timepoint*relationship status; Tables 10 and 11) predicting sexual satisfaction (0.81% variance explained), relationship status satisfaction (2.76% variance explained), and loneliness (1.79% variance explained). Among participants who remained in a new relationship, those with higher desire showed a greater increase in sexual satisfaction (b = 2.00, SE = 0.09, p < .001, d = 1.19) and relationship status satisfaction (b = 1.28, SE = 0.05, p < .001, d = 1.60), along with a greater decrease in loneliness (b = −0.77, SE = 0.04, p < .001, d = −1.06), than those with lower desire (b = 1.16, SE = .11, p < .001, d = 0.82 for sexual satisfaction, b = 0.34, SE = .07, p < .001, d = 0.57 for relationship status satisfaction, b = −0.34, SE = .05, p < .001, d = −0.49 for loneliness).

Table 10

Desire Moderation of Well-Being Differences With Stayed Single Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Model: Sexual satisfaction
Intercept	3.32	.04	<.001	[3.24, 3.40]
Remained Partnered	.43	.07	<.001	[.28, .57]
Briefly Partnered	.27	.08	.001	[.12, .43]
Timepoint	−.12	.05	.017	[−.21, −.02]
Desire	−.31	.03	<.001	[−.37, −.26]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.74	.07	<.001	[1.61, 1.88]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.24	.07	.001	[.10, .37]
Remained Partnered*Desire	.05	.05	.346	[−.05, .15]
Briefly Partnered*Desire	.07	.06	.228	[−.05, .19]
Timepoint*Desire	.01	.03	.740	[−.05, .07]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	.28	.05	<.001	[.18, .37]
Briefly PartneredTimepointDesire	.05	.05	.317	[−.05, .15]
Model: Relationship status satisfaction
Intercept	2.43	.02	<.001	[2.39, 2.48]
Remained Partnered	.10	.04	.005	[.03, .18]
Briefly Partnered	−.01	.04	.737	[−.09, .07]
Timepoint	−.18	.03	<.001	[−.24, −.13]
Desire	−.33	.01	<.001	[−.36, −.31]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.01	.04	<.001	[.94, 1.08]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.01	.04	.733	[−.06, .08]
Remained Partnered*Desire	−.01	.03	.825	[−.06, .05]
Briefly Partnered*Desire	.07	.03	.028	[.01, .13]
Timepoint*Desire	.06	.02	.001	[.02, .09]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	.28	.03	<.001	[.22, .33]
Briefly PartneredTimepointDesire	.04	.03	.107	[−.01, .10]
Model: Loneliness
Intercept	2.84	.02	<.001	[2.80, 2.87]
Remained Partnered	−.08	.03	.013	[−.15, −.02]
Briefly Partnered	−.02	.04	.515	[−.10, .05]
Timepoint	.00	.02	.938	[−.04, .04]
Desire	.14	.01	<.001	[.12, .16]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	−.53	.03	<.001	[−.59, −.47]
Briefly Partnered*Timepoint	.02	.03	.473	[−.04, .08]
Remained Partnered*Desire	.02	.02	.338	[−.02, .07]
Briefly Partnered*Desire	−.01	.03	.782	[−.06, .05]
Timepoint*Desire	−.02	.01	.162	[−.05, .01]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	−.14	.02	<.001	[−.18, −.10]
Briefly PartneredTimepointDesire	.02	.02	.270	[−.02, .06]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 11

Desire Moderation of Well-Being Differences With Briefly Partnered Group as Reference

Predictor	b	SE	p	95% CI
Model: Sexual satisfaction
Intercept	3.60	.07	<.001	[3.46, 3.73]
Stayed Single	−.27	.08	.001	[−.43, −.12]
Remained Partnered	.15	.09	.093	[−.03, .33]
Timepoint	.12	.05	.013	[.03, .22]
Desire	−.24	.05	<.001	[−.34, −.13]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.24	.07	.001	[−.37, −.10]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.50	.07	<.001	[1.37, 1.64]
Stayed Single*Desire	−.07	.06	.228	[−.19, .05]
Remained Partnered*Desire	−.02	.07	.737	[−.16, .11]
Timepoint*Desire	.06	.04	.110	[−.01, .14]
Stayed SingleTimepointDesire	−.05	.05	.317	[−.15, .05]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	.23	.05	<.001	[.12, 33]
Model: Relationship status satisfaction
Intercept	2.42	.03	<.001	[2.35, 2.49]
Stayed Single	.01	.04	.737	[−.07, .09]
Remained Partnered	.12	.05	.010	[.03, .21]
Timepoint	−.17	.03	<.001	[−.22, −.12]
Desire	−.27	.03	<.001	[−.32, −.21]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.01	.04	.733	[−.08, .06]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	1.00	.04	<.001	[.92, 1.07]
Stayed Single*Desire	−.07	.03	.028	[−.13, −.01]
Remained Partnered*Desire	−.07	.03	.036	[−.14, .00]
Timepoint*Desire	.10	.02	<.001	[.06, .14]
Stayed SingleTimepointDesire	−.04	.03	.107	[−.10, .01]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	.23	.03	<.001	[.18, .29]
Model: Loneliness
Intercept	2.81	.03	<.001	[2.75, 2.88]
Stayed Single	.02	.04	.515	[−.05, .10]
Remained Partnered	−.06	.04	.165	[−.14, .02]
Timepoint	.02	.02	.353	[−.02, .06]
Desire	.13	.03	<.001	[.08, .18]
Stayed Single*Timepoint	−.02	.03	.473	[−.08, .04]
Remained Partnered*Timepoint	−.55	.03	<.001	[−.61, −.49]
Stayed Single*Desire	.01	.03	.782	[−.05, .06]
Remained Partnered*Desire	.03	.03	.343	[−.03, .09]
Timepoint*Desire	.00	.02	.797	[−.03, .04]
Stayed SingleTimepointDesire	−.02	.02	.270	[−.06, .02]
Remained PartneredTimepointDesire	−.17	.02	<.001	[−.21−.12]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Among participants who stayed single or were briefly partnered, those with lower desire experienced a greater decrease in relationship status satisfaction (b = −0.24, SE = .02, p < .001, d = −0.29 for single, b = −0.33, SE = .08, p < .001, d = −0.39 for briefly partnered) than those with a higher desire (b = −0.08, SE = .03, p = .002, d = −0.09 for single, b = −0.02, SE = .07, p = .732, d = −0.01 for briefly partnered). There were no meaningful changes in sexual satisfaction or loneliness for these two groups (see Supplemental Material for details).

Discussion

We found that individuals who transitioned from singlehood to an intact romantic relationship over a 6-month period reported significant increases in life satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and satisfaction with their relationship status, as well as significant decreases in loneliness. These effects were particularly prominent for the two indicators of well-being that are most directly related to relationship status (sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with relationship status), moderate for a relationship-general indicator (loneliness), and significant but small for a domain-general indicator (life satisfaction). Our results thus highlight that well-being is not a monolithic construct, and that the benefits of entering a relationship appear to be stronger in domains more strongly tied to relationship status. Participants highest in desire for a partner showed the strongest increases following partnering, but even participants with below average desire for a partner showed significant (but smaller) increases after partnering. Our results add to the growing body of longitudinal studies that show transitions from singlehood to partnership are associated with increases in well-being (Bühler et al., 2024; Krämer et al., 2025; Park, MacDonald, & Impett, 2023; Soons et al., 2009). By implementing propensity score weighting, our findings strengthen the case that entering romantic relationships is a causal factor.

These data are also consistent with previous research showing selection effects; singles higher in life satisfaction and sexual satisfaction were more likely to enter a romantic relationship. These findings align with Oh et al.’s (2022) research showing that higher well-being is linked with an increased likelihood of being partnered in 10 years and replicate Park et al.’s (2021) finding that higher sexual satisfaction (although linked to lower desire for a partner) was related to higher likelihood of entering a relationship. However, it was also clear that selection effects could not fully account for the benefits associated with partnering, as effect sizes for baseline well-being differences were considerably weaker than those for relationship status change effects. Indeed, individuals who entered but did not remain in relationships shared some of the selective factors associated with higher likelihood of partnering (i.e., higher sexual satisfaction), but did not show a meaningful increase in well-being at Time 2.

Given research suggesting single women have higher well-being than single men (Hoan & MacDonald, 2024a; Wahring et al., 2024), we also examined moderation by gender. For life satisfaction and relationship status satisfaction, we found small interaction effects suggesting the well-being boost was stronger for men than for women. Men also experienced a small decrease in relationship status satisfaction when they stayed single or were briefly partnered, whereas women in these groups showed negligible changes in either domain. These effects did not extend to loneliness and sexual satisfaction. Given the inconsistency of the effects, these results should be treated with caution. If meaningful, the reasons for these findings are unclear; they could include men’s higher reliance on romantic partnership for social support (Stronge et al., 2019) and heteronormative gender role expectations that provide more benefits for men than women in committed relationships (van Anders et al., 2022; Wahring et al., 2024).

Although the longitudinal design, propensity score weighting, and relatively comprehensive coverage of well-being outcomes are key strengths of our study, the research also has several limitations. First, although applying propensity score methods to longitudinal relationship status data is perhaps the best available method for inferring causality from observational data, the lack of randomization is a serious limitation. Propensity score methods can only balance the confounders that are measured (Deb et al., 2016; Sainani, 2012). Thus, although we believe our analyses provide an important step toward supporting a causal explanation, there may be important confounders that we have failed to account for. Furthermore, the fact that the average person entering a relationship experiences a well-being boost does not mean that people not at all motivated to partner would also increase their well-being if they entered a relationship. Predictors of satisfaction with singlehood include a strong value placed on independence and solitude (Park, MacDonald, Impett, & Neel, 2023), a value which would be harder to enact as part of committed partnership. Thus, to be clear, we are not suggesting partnering is a universal pathway for increases in well-being, but there do seem to be potential benefits (especially on relationship status relevant variables) for those sufficiently motivated to do so (MacDonald et al., 2025). Furthermore, it is important to consider that past research suggests that entering a relationship is not cost-free. Longitudinal research has suggested that one domain of well-being that appears to suffer when entering a romantic relationship is satisfaction with work-life balance (Park, MacDonald, & Impett, 2023). Future research broadening the scope of domains examined and their relation to relationship status changes seems warranted.

Second, these data followed participants for a maximum of 6 months into their new relationships. Thus, the extent to which the well-being boosts are maintained over time is an open question. The early stage of a romantic relationship is unique in that it tends to involve sharp increases in attachment (Heffernan et al., 2012), as well as high levels of infatuation and a rapid number of “relationship firsts” with the new romantic partner (Joel & Machia, 2024). Given that relationship satisfaction tends to decrease over the first few years of a romantic relationship (Bühler et al., 2021), we might at least expect reductions in the current effect sizes over time. Having said that, Soons et al. (2009) showed that although partnered individuals’ life satisfaction decreased over time, so did that of those who stayed single for the time period studied (up to mid-life, at which point well-being tends to increase for people generally; e.g., Park et al., 2022), such that individuals who partnered retained higher well-being relative to singles years after the partnering event. Third, our data collection via Prolific was largely limited to the English-speaking, Western world. Cultural norms vary greatly in terms of presence or absence of dating culture, degree of autonomy in partner choice, sexual norms, etc. (e.g., Locke et al., 2020).

Singlehood Studies has been key for bringing into focus assumptions regarding societal narratives of romantic relationships, including highlighting that the universality of desire for romantic relationships has been overstated. This perspective emphasizes that many people lead happy single lives and that the decision to live single is a valid approach for many people’s well-being goals. However, our data serve as a reminder that one reason romantic partnering remains so common is that for many people such partnership may well improve their well-being.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251371351 – Supplemental material for In What Domains Does Entering a Romantic Relationship Boost Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251371351 for In What Domains Does Entering a Romantic Relationship Boost Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation by Helena Yuchen Qin, Elaine Hoan, Samantha Joel and Geoff MacDonald in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Lora Park

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant [435-2020-0176].

ORCID iDs

Helena Yuchen Qin

Elaine Hoan

Samantha Joel

Geoff MacDonald

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Helena Yuchen Qin (email: yqin287@uwo.ca) is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Western University (London, ON, Canada). She is interested in people’s evaluation processes of romantic relationships and the maintenance of healthy relationships.

Elaine Hoan (email: elaine.hoan@mail.utoronto.ca) is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto. Her research examines predictors (e.g., individual differences and cultural contexts) of well-being in singlehood and romantic relationships.

Samantha Joel (email: sjoel2@uwo.ca) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Western University (London, ON, Canada). She is interested in how people make decisions about romantic relationships, as well as methodological challenges in the context of relationship science.

Geoff MacDonald (email: geoff.macdonald@utoronto.ca) is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His research centers on the link between relationship status and well-being.

References

Austin

P. C.

A. Y. X.

Vyas

M. V.

Kapral

M. K.

(2021). Applying propensity score methods in clinical research in neurology. Neurology, 97(18), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012777

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Böger

Huxhold

(2018). Age-related changes in emotional qualities of the social network from middle adulthood into old age: How do they relate to the experience of loneliness? Psychology and Aging, 33(3), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000222

Buecker

Horstmann

K. T.

Krasko

Kritzler

Terwiel

Kaiser

Luhmann

(2020). Changes in daily loneliness for German residents during the first four weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113541

Bühler

J. L.

Krauss

Orth

(2021). Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1012–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342

Bühler

J. L.

Orth

Bleidorn

Weber

Kretzschmar

Scheling

Hopwood

C. J.

(2024). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 38(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219

Cheung

Lucas

R. E.

(2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809–2818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4

Chopik

W. J.

Moors

A. C.

Litman

D. J.

Shuck

M. S.

Stapleton

A. R.

Abrom

M. C.

Stevenson

K. A.

Purol

M. F.

(2023). Individual difference predictors of starting a new romantic relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 201, 111919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111919

Cohen

(1969). Statistic power analysis in the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.

10.

Day

M. V.

Kay

A. C.

Holmes

J. G.

Napier

J. L.

(2011). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023197

11.

Deb

Austin

P. C.

J. V.

D. T.

Mazer

C. D.

Kiss

Fremes

S. E.

(2016). A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 32(2), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.05.015

12.

DePaulo

B. M.

(2023). Single and flourishing: Transcending the deficit narratives of single life. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12525

13.

DePaulo

B. M.

Morris

W. L.

(2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2–3), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2005.9682918

14.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

15.

Diener

Gohm

C. L.

Suh

Oishi

(2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031004001

16.

Dykstra

P. A.

(1995). Loneliness among the never and formerly married: The importance of supportive friendships and a desire for independence. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 50B(5), S321–S329. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/50B.5.S321

17.

Edwards

L. J.

Muller

K. E.

Wolfinger

R. D.

Qaqish

B. F.

Schabenberger

(2008). An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine, 27(29), 6137–6157.

18.

Fisher

A. N.

Stinson

D. A.

Wood

J. V.

Holmes

J. G.

Cameron

J. J.

(2021). Singlehood and attunement of self-esteem to friendships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988460

19.

Girme

Y. U.

Park

MacDonald

(2023). Coping or thriving? Reviewing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal factors associated with well-being in singlehood from a within-group perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(5), 1097–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221136119

20.

Glenn

N. D.

Weaver

C. N.

(1979). A note on family situation and global happiness. Social Forces, 57(3), 960–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577364

21.

Heffernan

M. E.

Fraley

R. C.

Vicary

A. M.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2012). Attachment features and functions in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443435

22.

Hill Roy

Park

MacDonald

. (2023). Age moderates the link between relationship desire and life satisfaction among singles. Personal Relationships, 30(3), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12497

23.

Hoan

MacDonald

(2024a). “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves”: Gender differences in singles’ well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(6), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241287960

24.

Hoan

MacDonald

(2024b). Personality and well-being across and within relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(9), 1648–1663. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231225571

25.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

T. B.

Baker

Harris

Stephenson

(2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

26.

Hughes

M. E.

Waite

L. J.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

27.

Joel

Machia

(2024). How do invested partners become invested? A prospective investigation of fledgling relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(9), 1689–1702. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231224351

28.

Kislev

(2019). Happy singlehood: The rising acceptance and celebration of solo living. University of California Press.

29.

Kislev

(2021). Reduced relationship desire is associated with better life satisfaction for singles in Germany: An analysis of pairfam data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(7), 2073–2083. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211005024

30.

Krämer

M. D.

Rohrer

J. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Richter

(2025). Life events and life satisfaction: Estimating effects of multiple life events in combined models. European Journal of Personality, 39(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241231017

31.

Kurz

C. F.

Krzywinski

Altman

(2024). Propensity score matching. Nature Methods, 21, 1770–1772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02405-4

32.

Kurz

C. F.

Krzywinski

Altman

(2025). Propensity score weighting. Nature Methods, 22, 638–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-025-02629-y

33.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

34.

Lehmann

Tuinman

M. A.

Braeken

Vingerhoets

A. J.

Sanderman

Hagedoorn

(2015). Satisfaction with relationship status: Development of a new scale and the role in predicting well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9503-x

35.

(2019). Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 13(4), 2389–2415. https://doi.org/10.1214/19-AOAS1282

36.

Morgan

K. L.

Zaslavsky

A. M.

(2018). Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(521), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466

37.

Lin

Gamalo-Siebers

Tiwari

(2018). Propensity score matched augmented controls in randomized clinical trials: A case study. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 17(5), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1879

38.

Locke

K. D.

Mastor

K. A.

MacDonald

Barni

Morio

Reyes

J. A. S.

de Jesús Vargas-Flores

Ibáñez-Reyes

Kamble

Ortiz

F. A.

(2020). Young adults’ partner preferences and parents’ in-law preferences across generations, genders, and nations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2662

39.

Luhmann

Hofmann

Eid

Lucas

R. E.

(2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025948

40.

MacDonald

Park

(2022). Associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with life satisfaction, satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner. Personal Relationships, 29(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12416

41.

MacDonald

Thapar

Ryan

W. S.

Chung

J. M.

Hoan

Park

(2025). Why do you want a romantic relationship? Individual differences in motives for romantic relationship pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251331699

42.

Makowski

Ben-Shachar

Patil

Lüdecke

(2020). Estimation of model-based predictions, contrasts and means (Version 0.10.0) [R Package]. CRAN. https://github.com/easystats/modelbased

43.

Chopik

W. J.

Lucas

R. E.

(2022). Happiness singled out: Bidirectional associations between singlehood and life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(11), 1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211049049

44.

Olmos

Govindasamy

(2015). A practical guide for using propensity score weighting in R. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.7275/jjtm-r398

45.

Park

Impett

E. A.

MacDonald

(2021). Singles’ sexual satisfaction is associated with more satisfaction with singlehood and less interest in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220942361

46.

Park

MacDonald

(2022). Single and partnered individuals’ sexual satisfaction as a function of sexual desire and activities: Results using a sexual satisfaction scale demonstrating measurement invariance across partnership status. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02153-y

47.

Park

MacDonald

Impett

E. A.

(2023). Partnership status and satisfaction with work-life balance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2104717

48.

Park

MacDonald

Impett

E. A.

Neel

(2023). What social lives do single people want? A person-centered approach to identifying profiles of social motives among singles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(1), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000455

49.

Park

Page-Gould

MacDonald

(2022). Satisfying singlehood as a function of age and cohort: Satisfaction with being single increases with age after midlife. Psychology and Aging, 37(5), 626–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000695

50.

Pepping

C. A.

Girme

Y. U.

Cronin

T. J.

MacDonald

(2024). Diversity in singlehood experiences: Testing an attachment theory model of sub-groups of singles. Journal of Personality, 93(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12929

51.

Rohrer

J. M.

Murayama

(2023). These are not the effects you are looking for: Causality and the within-/between-persons distinction in longitudinal data analysis. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 25152459221140842. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221140842

52.

Rojas

(2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: Is it a simple relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(4), 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9009-2

53.

RStudio Team. (2024). RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 2024.04.0+735). RStudio, PBC. https://posit.co/download/rstudio-desktop/

54.

Sainani

K. L.

(2012). Propensity scores: Uses and limitations. PM&R, 4(9), 693–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.07.002

55.

Soons

J. P.

Liefbroer

A. C.

Kalmijn

(2009). The long-term consequences of relationship formation for subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1254–1270.

56.

Steel

Schmidt

Shultz

(2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

57.

Stronge

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2019). Gender differences in the associations between relationship status, social support, and wellbeing. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(7), 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000540

58.

Thomas

L. E.

Pencina

M. J.

(2020). Overlap weighting: A propensity score method that mimics attributes of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 323(23), 2417–2418. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.7819

59.

Traister

(2016). All the single ladies: Unmarried women and the rise of an independent nation. Simon and Schuster.

60.

van Anders

S. M.

Herbenick

Brotto

L. A.

Harris

E. A.

Chadwick

S. B

. (2022). The heteronormativity theory of low sexual desire in women partnered with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02100-x

61.

Wahring

I. V.

Neyer

F. J.

Hoppmann

C. A.

Ram

Gerstorf

(2024). Men and women transitioning to singlehood in young adulthood and midlife. Psychology and Aging, 40(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000859

62.

Wahring

I. V.

Simpson

J. A.

Van Lange

P. A.

(2025). Romantic relationships matter more to men than to women. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001365

63.

Walsh

L. C.

Horton

Rodriguez

Kaufman

V. A.

(2023). Happily ever after for coupled and single adults: A comparative study using latent profile analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(12), 3955–3982. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231197728

64.

Wilcox

(2024). Get married: Why Americans must defy the elites, forge strong families, and save civilization. Broadside Books.

65.

Zhao

Q. Y.

Luo

J. C.

Zhang

Y. J.

G. W.

Luo

(2021). Propensity score matching with R: Conventional methods and new features. Annals of Translational Medicine, 9(9), 812. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3998

66.

Zhou

Tong

Thomas

(2025). PSweight: Propensity score weighting for causal inference with observational studies and randomized trials (Version 2.1.0) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PSweight

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB