The Unrecognized Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Singles

ABSTRACT— A widespread form of bias has slipped under our cultural and academic radar. People who are single are targets of singlism : negative stereotypes and discrimination. Compared to married or coupled people, who are often described in very positive terms, singles are assumed to be immature, maladjusted, and self-centered. Although the perceived differences between people who have and have not married are large, the actual differences are not. Moreover, there is currently scant recognition that singlism exists, and when singlism is acknowledged, it is often accepted as legitimate.     

TARGET ARTICLE: Singles in Society and in Science

We suggest that single adults in contemporary American society are targets of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, a phenomenon we will call singlism. Singlism is an outgrowth of a largely uncontested set of beliefs, the Ideology of Marriage and Family. Its premises include the assumptions that the sexual partnership is the one truly important peer relationship and that people who have such partnerships are happier and more fulfilled than those who do not. We use published claims about the greater happiness of married people to illustrate how the scientific enterprise seems to be influenced by the ideology. We propose that people who are single-particularly women who have always been single-fare better than the ideology would predict because they do have positive, enduring, and important interpersonal relationships. The persistence of singlism is especially puzzling considering that actual differences based on civil (marital) status seem to be qualified and small, the number of singles is growing, and sensitivity to other varieties of prejudice is acute. By way of explanation, we consider arguments from evolutionary psychology, attachment theory, a social problems perspective, the growth of the cult of the couple, and the appeal of an ideology that offers a simple and compelling worldview.     

Singles ads: Gender,social class,and time

The contents of 800 singles ads were examined. They were compared by the gender of the advertiser, the year of appearance (1991 and 1986), and the SES of the target readership (affluent and general). There were very few advertisers who listed themselves as black, so these ads were not included in the study. Gender differences were most important. Men were more likely to offer financial security and seek attractiveness. Women were more likely to offer attractiveness and seek financial security. The gender differences were in agreement with those reported for over a decade and from many geographical areas, although less than half of the advertisers mentioned either finances or attractiveness. Contrary to our hypotheses, the contents of mens' and womens' ads were more different in 1991 than they had been in 1986 and more in conformity with sexual stereotypes. Ads in a paper with an affluent readership were more likely to mention educational and financial status while ads in a paper with a readership throughout the metropolitan area were more likely to mention physical characteristics.     

Perceptions of Singles and Single Parents: A Laboratory Experiment1

Two hundred forty undergraduates rated their perceptions of an individual for a job requiring relocation using a 2 × 3 (Gender: Single Male, Single Female × Child: No Child, 3‐Year‐Old, 6‐Year‐Old) between‐subjects experimental design. Findings indicate that single parents are perceived as having a more difficult time adjusting to a move but are also perceived to be more mature than childless singles. Single parents are also more likely to be offered a job that did not require relocation and are more likely to be awarded a merit‐based stipend than childless singles. Support was also found for the hypothesized mediating role of perceptions of adjustment and maturity in understanding actions taken toward single parents. The results are discussed in terms of implications for future research and applied practice.     

Update: Singles in Late‐Modern Conservative Religions

This article reviews the state of the research on religious singles, claiming that it is an understudied field. In late modernity, the age of marriage has risen. The importance of family for religious observance and the “family values” ideology adopted by conservative religions pose obstacles for singles who wish to remain observant, and can lead to their marginalization. I review the literature on singles and identify common patterns informed by my own research on religious Zionist singles. I argue that discourse and values regarding marriage and singlehood across various conservative religious communities have much in common, and that religious singles often find themselves torn between their religious values and those of secular mainstream young adult society.     

Law and LGBQ-Parent Families

This paper addresses how the law affects LGBQ-parent families. We first outline the legal landscape that LGBQ parents face in the US, underscoring that it varies drastically by state and creates inequity for families. Reviewing existing social science research, we then address how the law affects three processes for LGBQ people: desiring parenthood, becoming a parent, and experiencing parenthood. Our review indicates that the law affects if and how LGBQ people become parents. LGBQ people consider the law as they make decisions about whether to pursue adoption, donor insemination, or surrogacy and often view the latter two pathways as the most legally secure. Further, the law continues to be salient for LGBQ parents throughout parenthood and affects family well-being. Specifically, legal inequity diminishes parent’s well-being, the relationship among couples who are parenting, and parents’ ability to effectively advocate for their children in institutional settings like healthcare contexts. Finally, we address directions for future research for scholars interested in the law, family processes and outcomes, and LGBQ families.     

The Families and Democracy Project

The Families and Democracy Project moves family therapists and other professionals into the community via a critique of traditional provider/consumer models of family services, a set of principles about the civic engagement of families in partnership with professionals, and a set of public practices for working on community problems. We describe the Families and Democracy model and three specific projects. We distinguish the model from traditional hierarchical and collaborative models of working with families. And we discuss lessons we have learned, and our plans to take this work to its next developmental stage.