Journal of Happiness Studies (2019) 20:2445–2469

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0057-1

RESEARCH PAPER

Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase

Life Satisfaction and Reduce Loneliness

Alica Bucher1 · Andreas B. Neubauer2 · Andreas Voss1 · Carolin Oetzbach1

Published online: 21 November 2018

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract
Recently, the term mingle was introduced for persons with an intimate relationship who do
not define themselves as romantic partners. This study examines differences between sin-
gle, mingle and partnered adults in terms of life satisfaction and loneliness. Furthermore,
need fulfillment is investigated as a mediator concerning the link between relationship sta-
tus with life satisfaction and emotional loneliness. Lastly, a longitudinal analysis examined
whether increases in commitment lead to higher well-being. A total of 764 participants
completed an online questionnaire. Mingles fell in between singles and partnered adults
regarding emotional loneliness and life satisfaction. With regard to female participants,
relatedness and competence need fulfillment fully mediated the link between relationship
status and life satisfaction whereas the association between relationship status and emo-
tional loneliness was specifically mediated by the relatedness and autonomy component.
Finally, shifting into more committed forms of relationship increased well-being regarding
the longitudinal analysis.

Keywords Well-being · Mingle relationship · Relationship status · Basic psychological

needs · Self-determination

1 Introduction

Having a stable romantic relationship displays one of the most prominent roles individuals
desire to achieve in their lives (Roberts and Wood 2006). However, according to a report of
the Federal Statistical Office in Germany (2016) the number of unmated individuals raised
by 16% between 2004 and 2014. Given the increasing availability of online dating portals
and slowly decreasing negative attitudes towards online dating (Finkel et al. 2012), this
trend seems surprising at first glance. Although social media and dating applications pro-
vide multitudinous opportunities of getting to know new people (Gibbs et al. 2006) and
forming new romantic relationships, they might also undermine the formation of stable,
committed romantic relationships: the virtual presence of many potential partners could

* Alica Bucher
[email protected]‑heidelberg.de
1
Institute of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Hauptstr. 47‑51, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
2
German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Frankfurt, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2446 A. Bucher et al.

inveigle some individuals not to commit to one partner as a consequence of a potential

“fear of missing out” (Przybylski et al. 2013) of better alternatives. Additionally, with the
multitude of potential partners it is not necessary to be in a stable relationship in order to
have intimacy and sexual interactions (Poortman and Liefbroer 2010). As a consequence,
there seems to be a growing number of individuals who stay single or engage in less com-
mitted forms of relationship.
Recent studies investigated if increases in commitment lead to higher well-being. Kamp
Dush and Amato (2005), for example, examined whether married individuals, cohabit-
ing persons, individuals dating one person steadily, people dating multiple persons, and
individuals not dating at all form a continuum of commitment with higher levels of com-
mitment being associated with higher subjective well-being. What is missing from these
recent studies is the investigation of more currently emerged types of partnership. As men-
tioned before, there is an increasing amount of individuals who form less committed forms
of relationships called mingle. The term mingle is composed of the words “mixed” and
“single” and implies that two persons share an intimate relationship with each other over
a certain period of time without fully committing to be romantic partners (Tesch 2014).
The fear of possibly missing out better opportunities, the importance of expressing one’s
own independence and the ease of getting to know new potential partners via social media
or dating applications display some of the reasons promoting this new form of partnership
(Poortman and Liefbroer 2010).
Mingles can be distinguished from partnered individuals (i.e., individuals that are fully
committed towards one another) by different locations on a “continuum of commitment”
(Kamp Dush and Amato 2005). Fully committing to a relationship reflects the relationship
to be a fundamental part in a person’s identity (Kamp Dush and Amato 2005). Whereas
partnered individuals feel truly committed to their partner, mingles share an intimate rela-
tionship while not definitely committing. Morris and Fuller (1999) also proposed a contin-
uum of commitment to define different types of relationship formation. In their work, com-
mitment is mentioned as the key element defining the current relationship status of adults.
Mingle relationships, which are understood as an intimate relationship without commit-
ting to the partnership, can be compared to the relationship type “seeing each-other” in
the article by Morris and Fuller (1999). People in this kind of partnership are perceived as
dating one person regularly and sharing intimacy while not engaging in other intimate rela-
tionships to other persons. As opposed to friend with benefit relationships, which typically
emphasize the sexual component of a partnership, mingles furthermore live like a roman-
tic couple in their private lives while claiming to be single when in public. Mingles are,
however, also expected to differ from single individuals on the commitment continuum:
mingles can best be perceived as individuals in rather low committed relationships whereas
singles do not have any committed form of partnership at all.
Different levels of commitment, in turn, can be expected to be associated with differ-
ences in various indicators of well-being. For example, romantic relationship involve-
ment is associated with greater life satisfaction (Umberson and Williams 1999) whereas
the absence of social attachments is linked with extenuated mental health and diminished
well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Moreover, relationship status plays an important
role for loneliness as the absence of significant social relationships—especially in terms of
lack of closeness and intimacy—leads to a greater perception of loneliness (Russell et al.
1984). Additionally, functioning romantic relationships fulfill important psychological
needs (House et al. 1988). Whereas differences in life satisfaction and loneliness between
single and partnered adults are well documented (e.g., Adamczyk 2016; Adamczyk and
Segrin 2015), little is known whether mingles differ from partnered adults regarding these

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2447

variables. The present study is the first to systematically investigate the difference between
mingles and partnered individuals regarding life satisfaction, loneliness and psychological
need fulfillment.
The next sections will be organized as follows: first, we will summarize prior research
investigating differences between singles and partnered adults in life satisfaction and lone-
liness. We will further address the question whether mingles will be expected to be more
similar to singles, to partnered adults, or to fall in between these two groups with regard to
life satisfaction and loneliness. Next we will outline a potential mediator of group differ-
ences between mingles and partnered adults. Taking into account self-determination the-
ory (Deci and Ryan 2000), fulfillment of basic psychological needs through the romantic
partner will be discussed as a factor potentially driving differences between mingles and
partnered adults in life satisfaction and loneliness. In a cross-sectional study with more
than 700 participants in an online survey we will then examine group differences in life
satisfaction, emotional loneliness, and need fulfillment between mingles and adults in com-
mitted relationships. We further supplement these results by longitudinal analysis to exam-
ine whether shifting into higher committed relationships increases well-being and leads to
lower feelings of emotional loneliness.

1.1 Relationship Status and Life Satisfaction

There is a large body of research investigating life satisfaction among married individuals,
individuals in other committed relationships and singles showing that marriage and stable
romantic relationships are associated with higher life satisfaction (Braithwaite et al. 2010;
Simon and Barrett 2010; Uecker 2012). Married individuals and people in a committed
relationship are emotionally more satisfied compared to single individuals (Coombs 1991).
Needs for love, intimacy and sexual gratification are typically fulfilled to a much higher
degree in stable relationships, and studies examining the differences in life satisfaction
among single and partnered adults find an advantage for individuals in a stable romantic
relationship (Adamczyk 2016).
Mingles have an intimate relationship with one person while not fully committing to the
partnership. This group can be characterized by a lower commitment and romantic involve-
ment compared to people in a stable relationship. Romantic involvement is associated with
a more positive self-concept (Campbell et al. 1994) which may lead to a greater life satis-
faction, as people in a committed relationship receive higher levels of confirmation from
their current partner compared to mingle adults. Single adults, in turn, lack this source
of confirmation since they are not in any form of romantic relationship. Building on this
argumentation, these three groups are expected to align on a continuum of commitment
and, consequently, to experience increasing levels of life satisfaction with increasing com-
mitment levels.

1.2 Relationship Status and Loneliness

Loneliness can be defined as a feeling of distress arising from deficiencies regarding

social relationships (Perlman and Peplau 1984). Given the centrality of committed
romantic partnerships among other forms of social relations, it is not surprising that a
lot of research has been conducted to investigate the role of relationship status on loneli-
ness (Russell et al. 1980). On a conceptual level, Weiss (1973) differentiated between
social and emotional loneliness. The first dimension of loneliness emerges from the

13
2448 A. Bucher et al.

absence of a network of social interactions with others whereas emotional loneliness

arises from the lack of a truly intimate tie, usually with a romantic partner, parent, or
child (Green et al. 2001). Adamczyk (2016) could identify differences between single
and partnered adults with the former reporting higher levels of emotional loneliness,
but not social loneliness. The lack of a stable romantic relationship plays a major role in
explaining higher perceived emotional loneliness among single individuals who have no
partner to share love and intimacy with (Rokach and Brock 1998).
Since mingles form a more superficial relationship in which they do not fully commit
to the partner, they probably keep an emotional distance from this person, for example
to minimize the negative impact of a possible rejection. Concerning a continuum of
commitment, being in a stable relationship is a more profound basis of one’s own iden-
tity than being in a mingle partnership and being mingle, in turn, is a more salient basis
for personal identity than being single (Kamp Dush and Amato 2005). Concluding,
emotional loneliness should be highest for single adults, followed by mingles and part-
nered individuals. With regard to social loneliness, we expect no differences between
singles, mingles and partnered individuals.

1.3 Relationship Status and Need Fulfillment

Self-determination theory (SDT) assumes that there are three essential needs whose
fulfillment is necessary for optimal psychological functioning and well-being: auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000). Autonomy refers to the extent
to which one’s actions are perceived as voluntarily and freely chosen. Competence
describes the feeling of being effective and capable of obtaining desired results. Relat-
edness refers to having close and caring relations to other human beings. SDT assumes
that fulfillment of all three basic needs is a precondition for well-being (Patrick et al.
2007). This assumption was confirmed in studies showing that fulfillment of all three
needs is linked to higher life satisfaction and lower depression as well as lower loneli-
ness (Vansteenkiste et al. 2006; Wei et al. 2005). Of note, fulfillment of these three
needs has been postulated to be associated with higher well-being for all individuals,
regardless of inter-individual differences in culture, age, or gender. That is, although
individuals may differ in the degree to which they value fulfillment of these needs or
pursue fulfillment of these needs, such differences typically fail to moderate the strong
positive effects of need fulfillment (e.g., Sheldon 2011; Chen et al. 2015).
Need fulfillment and need frustration are experiences that individuals can have in
many different settings and roles, one of which is in their romantic relationships. In
fact, fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness within close
and romantic relationships plays an important role in predicting life satisfaction and
loneliness. La Guardia et al. (2000) revealed a positive association between need ful-
fillment through a significant partner and well-being. Patrick et al. (2007) found that
the fulfillment of each need through the partner was individually linked to greater life
satisfaction, with relatedness displaying the most influential predictor. Hence, previous
research shows that fulfillment of all three needs in relationships is related to indicators
of well-being. Again, assuming mingles and partnered individuals to differ on a crucial
dimension describing the relationship—commitment—we also expect that differences in
well-being between these two groups will at least partially be mediated via differences
in need fulfillment.

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2449

1.4 The Current Study

The purpose of the present study is to analyze associations of participants’ relationship sta-
tus with life satisfaction, loneliness and need fulfillment. More specifically, we pursue the
following aims: first, this is to our knowledge the first study which examines mingle adults
regarding their life satisfaction, loneliness and need fulfillment. Based on previous research
(Adamczyk 2016; Braithwaite et al. 2010)—conceptualizing mingles lower on a commit-
ment continuum than partnered adults—we delineated following hypotheses: specifically,
we expected that adults in a committed relationship (compared to mingle individuals)
would experience higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels of emotional loneliness.
Specifically, we expected mingle adults to fall in between singles and partnered adults in
terms of both life satisfaction (hypothesis 1) and emotional loneliness (hypothesis 2).
Second we are interested in uncovering the processes which account for the hypoth-
esized discrepancy between mingles and individuals in a committed relationship. It was
expected that mingles would report lower levels of need fulfillment through their romantic
partner than adults in a committed relationship (hypothesis 3). Furthermore, need fulfill-
ment through the partner was expected to act as a mediator between relationship status
and life satisfaction (hypothesis 4), with fulfillment of all three needs mediating group dif-
ferences in life satisfaction. For the difference in emotional loneliness, we expected that
primarily the fulfillment of the need for relatedness (but not competence and autonomy)
would mediate the effect of relationship status (hypothesis 5). This hypothesis is derived
from prior research that has tied loneliness specifically to the lack of relatedness fulfillment
(Neubauer and Voss 2016).
Lastly, we compare two competing hypotheses regarding the direction of the postu-
lated association between relationship status and our investigated outcomes: the selection
perspective emphasizes the tendency of individuals with higher levels of mental health or
well-being to choose relationships with higher levels of commitment (Lamb et al. 2003).
According to this account, happier and healthier people are more likely to be selected into
marriage (Horwitz et al. 1996). To rule out the possibility that differences in life satis-
faction and emotional loneliness between the types of relationship status could be due to
selection effects, we used a longitudinal design to investigate whether shifting into higher
committed relationships increases life satisfaction and reduces emotional loneliness. In our
longitudinal analysis we want to address the question whether transitions in relationship
status lead to changes in emotional loneliness and life satisfaction. Increased commitment
should go along with higher prospective life satisfaction and lower emotional loneliness
whereas the opposite should be true for decreases in commitment.

2 Method

2.1 Sample and Procedure

An online questionnaire was used for data collection. The link to the questionnaire was sent
via e-mail to members of a participant pool at a large German university. Students from
different disciplines are registered on this platform and are informed about current empiri-
cal studies which they can attend. Furthermore, Facebook was used to reach a great num-
ber of participants. Nine-hundred-ninety-six people started the questionnaire; 779 (78%)

13
2450 A. Bucher et al.

completed the survey. Data from 15 participants were identified as outliers and discarded,
yielding a final sample of 764 participants (Mage = 28.3 years, SD = 7.2, range = 17–59;
62% female).
Two-hundred and forty-four (Mage = 27.4 years, SD = 8.3, range = 17–58; 75% female) of
the 764 adults completed a similar online survey 1 year prior to this study (further referred
to as T0). For these study participants, longitudinal information on relationship status, life
satisfaction and emotional loneliness is available, too.1 The remaining 520 participants had
not been approached for the assessment wave at T0. Unless otherwise stated, the follow-
ing information refer to the second measurement occasion (further referred to as T1) with
N = 764.

2.2 Measurements

2.2.1 Demographic Questionnaire

In addition to age, gender and level of education, we also assessed the current relation-
ship status and duration of this status. To identify relationship status, participants could
choose between three answer options: “I am in a steady relationship” (partnered; N = 372;
48% of the whole sample), “I am not in a steady relationship, but I have an intimate rela-
tionship with one person” (mingle; N = 111; 15%) and “I am not in a steady relationship”
(single; N = 281; 37%). To determine the duration of being single, mingle or partnered,
the participants were asked to respond to the question: “For how long has your current
relationship status been unchanged?” Four possible responses were given (1 = “less than
6 months”, 2 = “between 6 and 12 months”, 3 = “between 12 and 24 months”, 4 = “more
than 24 months”).2 Further information on demographics can be found in Tables 1 and 2.

2.2.2 Life Satisfaction

To assess participants’ current life satisfaction, the German translation (Glaesmer et al.
2011) of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985) was applied. Partici-
pants could indicate how much they agree or disagree with each of the five statements on a
scale ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 7 (“totally agree”). A sample item is: “In most
ways my life is close to my ideal”. Internal consistency for the SWLS was high (α = .87).

2.2.3 Loneliness

Two items were used to measure specific forms of loneliness. Social loneliness and emo-
tional loneliness were measured by two items that were adopted from Russell et al. (1984).
Both types of loneliness were described in 2-3 sentences and the participants should com-
plete the sentence “I feel this kind of loneliness…” on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not

1
We used Little’s MCAR test to reveal the mechanism leading to missing values. In our model we inte-
grated all relevant variables used in the longitudinal analyses. These were relationship status at T0 and T1,
mean life satisfaction and mean loneliness at T0 and T1, age, gender and duration of relationship status at
T0 (three dummy coded variables due to four categories). The test suggested the missing values to be miss-
ing completely at random, χ2(6) = 6.29, p = .392.
2
The variable duration of being in the current relationship status originally consisted of six categories
which we subsumed into four categories to circumvent issues of small cell sizes.

13
 Table 1  Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Age 28.26 7.21 1

2 Gendera .38 .49 .12** 1
3 Autonomyb 6.07 .99 − .08 − .23** 1
4 Competenceb 5.72 .97 .05 .03 .62** 1
5 Relatednessb 5.95 1.14 − .09 − .03 .63** .60** 1
6 Commitmentb 5.72 1.61 .03 − .04 .47** .41** .63** 1
7 Social Loneliness 3.55 2.18 − .04 − .01 − .13** − .22** − .11* − .08 1
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase…

8 Emotional Loneliness 3.68 2.56 .01 .13** − .36** − .31** − .43** − .48** .28** 1
9 Life Satisfaction 4.96 1.19 − .09* − .05 .31** .35** .34** .28** − .38** − .38** 1

N = 764
a
0 = female, 1 = male
b
N = 483
*
p < .05
**
p < .01
2451

13
 2452

13
Table 2  Demographic questionnaire
Variable Total sample (N = 764) Single sample (N = 281) Mingle sample (N = 111) Partnered
sample
(N = 372)
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
a
Age 28.26 (7.21) 28.06 (7.27) 29.14 (6.72) 28.14 (7.31)
Gender
Female 472 (61.8) 141 (50.2) 74 (66.7) 257 (69.1)
Male 292 (38.2) 140 (49.8) 37 (33.3) 115 (30.9)
Duration of current relationship status
Less than 6 months 173 (22.6) 67 (23.8) 64 (57.7) 42 (11.3)
Between 6 and 12 months 89 (11.7) 46 (16.4) 15 (13.5) 28 (7.5)
Between 12 and 24 months 124 (16.2) 37 (13.2) 13 (11.7) 74 (19.9)
More than 24 months 378 (49.5) 131 (46.6) 19 (17.1) 228 (61.3)
a
Mean (SD)
A. Bucher et al.
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2453

at all” to 9 = “very strongly”) to indicate how strongly they felt the described type of
loneliness.

2.2.4 Need Fulfillment

The Need Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (La Guardia et al. 2000) was assessed to indi-
cate the extent to which people feel supported by their current partner concerning their
autonomy, competence and relatedness needs. Each need was assessed by three items
using a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”). This
scale was only administered to those participants who reported to be partnered or mingle
because single individuals do not have a romantic partner through whom their need could
be fulfilled (since singles do not have a romantic partner, need fulfillment through a partner
is nonsensical). We introduced the scale by specifying that the following items refer to the
partnership which the participants indicated earlier in the study. Sample items are “When
I am with my romantic partner, I feel free to be who I am” (autonomy), “When I am with
my romantic partner, I feel very capable and effective” (competence) and “When I am with
my romantic partner, I feel loved and cared about” (relatedness). Internal consistency for
the three scales was acceptable, with α = .69 (autonomy), α = .63 (competence), and α = .79
(relatedness), respectively.

2.2.5 Commitment

Participants who reported to be either partnered or mingle were additionally asked to indi-
cate how much they agree with the following three items on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging
from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”): (a)”I am committed to my current relationship”,
(b)”I want the relationship to last forever” and (c)”I am oriented toward the long-term
future of my relationship (e.g. I imagine being with my partner several years from now)”
(see Fletcher et al. 2000, for Item 1; see Rusbult et al. 1998 for Item 2 and Item 3). Internal
consistency was high (α = .88). Again, commitment was not assessed for single individuals
because - by definition - they do not have a relationship to which they can be committed.

2.3 Data Analyses

Our statistical analyses consist of three parts. First, the mean differences between single,
mingle and partnered adults concerning the dependent variables in the cross-sectional data
set were analyzed using two-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with the factors rela-
tionship status (single, mingle, partnered adults) and gender (male, female). To interpret
the effect sizes, eta-squared is reported. We added gender as an additional factor to further
explore possible differences between male and female participants and to investigate inter-
action effects between gender and relationship status. Moreover, we controlled for age as
different experiences may be related to age and could affect our analysis. Lastly, we added
the duration of being in the current relationship status as covariate. In every model, rela-
tionship status, age, duration of relationship status (dummy coded), gender and the interac-
tion term between gender and relationship status are integrated. To test our hypotheses, we
used polynomial contrasts and post hoc comparisons, after running the ANCOVAs. Linear
and quadratic contrasts for the factor relationship status were tested. Expecting the three
groups to lie on a continuum of commitment, our hypotheses regarding differences in life
satisfaction and loneliness translate into an expected linear effect of relationship status on

13
2454 A. Bucher et al.

the dependent variables life satisfaction and emotional loneliness. For the post hoc com-
parisons, point-biserial correlation coefficients are reported to interpret the effect size of
the respective mean differences (LeBlanc and Cox 2017). Point-biserial correlations can
be transformed into other effect sizes measures such as Cohen’s (1988) d (see Rosenthal
(1994) for details).
Second, again using only the cross-sectional data collected at T1, mediation analyses
were conducted via the PROCESS macro (Hayes 2013). With these analyses, we deter-
mined whether the differences in life satisfaction and emotional loneliness between mingles
and partnered adults would be mediated via fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness through the romantic partner. Hence, these analyses are based on
the cross-sectional data of N = 483 participants (Mage = 28.4 years, SD = 7.2, range = 18–59;
69% female). Bootstrap confidence intervals (bCI) based on 10,000 bootstrap samples were
assessed to determine whether the indirect effect was statistically significant. Fulfillment
of all three needs was added simultaneous into the mediation model to account for overlap
between the three needs in predicting life satisfaction and loneliness; hence, the applied
model adjusts for the correlations among the three need fulfillment scales. We again con-
trolled for participants’ gender, age and duration of current relationship status.
Lastly, the Mplus Software (Muthén and Muthén 2007) was deployed for the longitu-
dinal analyses (T0 and T1 data; N = 244). Mplus is a widely used software for structural
equation modeling (SEM). SEM is a statistical modeling technique that allows for the mod-
eling of the relationship between observed and latent variables and the modeling of the
relationship between latent variables. In the current study SEM was used for analyzing the
effect of a change in relationship status on life satisfaction and emotional loneliness. As we
report standardized regression coefficient, the effect size can be interpreted the same way
as the point-biserial correlation coefficients, .10 representing a small, .30 a medium and .50
a large effect size.

3 Results

3.1 Cross‑Sectional Analysis

Results concerning the effect of relationship status on all dependent variables are presented
in Table 3. Results regarding gender, age and duration of current relationship status are
reported in the text only.

3.1.1 Relationship Status and Life Satisfaction

As can be seen in Table 3, there was a statistically significant difference in life satisfac-
tion between the three groups. The polynomial contrast analysis indicated a linear effect
(clinear = − .48, p < .001; cquadratic = − .01, p = .939). Regarding the post hoc comparison min-
gle participants reported lower life satisfaction, t(754) = 2.31, p = .020, r = .08, than par-
ticipants in a committed relationship but significantly higher levels of life satisfaction com-
pared to singles, t(754) = 2.51, p = .012, r = .09. Compared to partnered participants single
participants reported lower levels of life satisfaction, t(754) = 7.11, p < .001, r = .25.
Older participants reported lower levels of life satisfaction, F(1, 754) = 6.83, p = .009,
η2 = .01. There were no other effects involving gender or duration of current relationship
status on life satisfaction, F < 2.29, p > .131, η2 < .003, for all tests.

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2455

Table 3  Means and standard deviations on all outcome variables by relationship status
Variable Single sample (N = 281) Mingle sam- Partnered F value df η2
ple (N = 111) sample
(N = 372)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Well-being
Life satisfaction 4.59 (1.14) 4.86 (1.20) 5.27 (1.14) 25.39*** 2/754 .06
Loneliness
Social loneliness 3.68 (2.27) 3.42 (2.21) 3.48 (2.10) 1.59 2/754 .00
Emotional loneliness 5.42 (2.35) 4.32 (2.44) 2.18 (1.71) 177.23*** 2/754 .32
Need ­fulfillmenta
Autonomy 5.70 (1.02) 6.17 (.95) 9.00*** 1/475 .02
Competence 5.41 (.97) 5.81 (.95) 5.22** 1/475 .01
Relatedness 5.25 (1.24) 6.16 (1.01) 29.67*** 1/475 .06
Commitmenta 3.83 (1.65) 6.29 (1.09) 181.76*** 1/475 .28
a
N = 483
***
p < .001
**
p < .01

3.1.2 Relationship Status and Loneliness

With regard to social loneliness, no significant effect of relationship status could be found,
F(2, 754) = 1.59, p = .205, η2 < .01. No other effects concerning gender, age or duration of
current relationship status reached significance, F < 1.25, p > .263, η2 < .003, for all tests.
Concerning emotional loneliness, there was a large and significant effect of relationship
status, F(2, 754) = 177.23, p < .001, η2 = .32. The polynomial contrast analysis indicated
a linear effect (clinear = 2.30, p < .001; cquadratic = − .44, p = .026). Post-hoc contrast showed
that all pairwise differences were statistically significant: both mingle, t(754) = 8.39,
p < .001, r = .29, and single participants, t(754) = 18.71, p < .001, r = .56, indicated higher
levels of emotional loneliness than partnered participants. The analysis also disclosed a
significant difference on emotional loneliness between single and mingle adults with min-
gles reporting lower values on emotional loneliness, t(754) = 4.32, p < .001, r = .16.
There were no effects involving gender, age or duration of current relationship status on
emotional loneliness, F < 1 for all.

3.1.3 Relationship Status and Need Fulfillment

Since the need satisfaction scales were used in this study concerning the current romantic
partner, only mingle and partnered adults were administered this scale. Therefore, the sam-
ple of the following analyses was N = 483.
Results showed a significant effect of relationship status on all three need satisfaction
scales: in the interaction with their intimate partner, partnered adults reported higher ful-
fillment of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness compared to mingles.
Main effects of gender on autonomy and competence could be found, indicating that—
overall—men report lower fulfillment of the need for autonomy, F(1, 475) = 9.00, p = .003,
η2 = .02 and higher fulfillment of the need for competence than women F(1, 475) = 4.21,

13
2456 A. Bucher et al.

(a) (b)
0.3
autonomy need fulfillment

0.3

competence need fulfillment

0.1 0.1

-0.1 -0.1

-0.3 -0.3

-0.5 -0.5

-0.7 -0.7
partnered mingle partnered mingle
female male female male

(c) (d)
0.6
relatedness need fulfillment

0.4 0.4

0.2
-0.1
commitment

0
-0.2
-0.6
-0.4
-0.6 -1.1
-0.8
-1 -1.6
partnered mingle partnered mingle
female male female male

Fig. 1  Interaction between relationship status and gender regarding all three components of need fulfillment
and commitment. Error bars indicate standard errors; y-axis shows z-standardized scores

p = .041, η2 = .01. Most interestingly, the analyses revealed significant interactions of rela-
tionship status and gender for autonomy, F(1, 475) = 7.22, p = .007, η2 = .02, competence,
F(1, 475) = 10.04, p = .002, η2 = .02 and relatedness, F(1, 475) = 12.91, p < .001, η2 = .03.
Only for women, but not for men, need fulfillment was lower when they find themselves in
a lower committed relationship status (Fig. 1a–c).
No other effects involving gender, age or duration of current relationship status reached
statistical significance, F < 2.74, p > .098, η2 < .01.

3.1.4 Relationship Status and Commitment

There was a significant main effect of relationship status, F(1, 475) = 181.76, p < .001,
η2 = .28, indicating considerably higher values of commitment for participants in a stable
romantic relationship in comparison to mingles. Again, there was a significant interaction

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2457

between relationship status and gender, F(1, 475) = 13.20, p < .001, η2 = .03. The differ-
ence in commitment between mingles and partnered individuals was larger for women
(Fig. 1d).3

3.1.5 Mediation Analyses

Next, we tested the hypothesis that the different dimensions of need fulfillment by the cur-
rent partner mediate the differences in life satisfaction and loneliness between mingles and
partnered adults. As only mingle and partnered adults had a “partner” during the assess-
ment of the online questionnaire and singles did not, only the two groups were considered
in the analysis (relationship status for these analyses was dummy coded as 0 = being in a
committed relationship, 1 = mingle).
For the dependent variable life satisfaction, two of the three indirect effects (denoted
ab) were statistically significant, while the direct effect of relationship status was not,
p = .849. Findings suggest that differences in life satisfaction between mingles and adults
in a committed relationship are fully mediated by fulfillment of the needs for compe-
tence (ab = − 10, 95% bCI = [− .21, − .03]), and relatedness (ab = − .12, 95% bCI = [− .27,
− .02]), but not autonomy (ab = − .04, 95% bCI = [− .15, .02]). Group differences in
emotional loneliness were partially mediated via fulfillment of the needs for autonomy
(ab = .15, 95% bCI = [.04, .33]) and relatedness (ab = .34, 95% bCI = [.12, .63]), but not
competence (ab = .04, 95% bCI = [− .05, .14]). The direct effect of relationship status on
emotional loneliness remained statistically significant after including the three mediators,
p < .001. To quantify the size of the mediation effect, we computed the proportion of the
indirect effect to the total effect (Hayes 2013).4 Results showed that 93% (life satisfaction)
and 27% (emotional loneliness), respectively, of the differences between mingle and part-
nered adults were mediated through need fulfillment.
Since our previous findings revealed a gender by relationship status interaction on pre-
dicting need fulfillment, we repeated these mediation analyses separately for women and
men. Results showed that the indirect effects were significant for women, but not men.
Results of the mediation analyses on the dependent variables life satisfaction and emo-
tional loneliness can be found in Fig. 2, including the different coefficients for female and
male participants.

3
We integrated age as an additional moderator into our existing models. By using hierarchical regres-
sion analyses, we tested whether adding the interaction terms between age and relationship status (dummy
coded with mingle relationship as reference group) into the model leads to a significant change regarding
the explained variance of the dependent variables. We compared the models with and without the interac-
tion term between age and relationship status. Only with regard to relatedness need fulfillment through the
current partner there was a significant change in R², Fdiff(1, 474) = 5.97, p = .015, R2diff = .01. Concerning all
other dependent measures, no significant increase could be found, Fdiff < 2.55, p > .079, R2diff < .01. Includ-
ing the interaction terms into the models did not alter the previous found main effects of relationship status.
Furthermore, we also calculated the dfbeta values for each regression model to control for possible influ-
ential cases due to age that might have affected our findings. However, no value exceeded the critical value
of |2| (Stevens 2009).
4
Since the total effect amounts to the sum of the indirect effect and the direct effect, the proportion of
indirect to total effect can be construed of as the proportion of the effect on the dependent variable that is
mediated through the mediator.

13
2458 A. Bucher et al.

(a)
a1 = -.61***/-.14 Autonomy b1 = .06/.20

Relationship a2 = -.63**/.11 b2 = .18*/.43***

Competence Life satisfaction
status

a3 = -1.09***/-.42 Relatedness b3 = .19**/.06

c' = -.04/-.20
(c = -.30*)

(b) a1 = -.61***/-.14 Autonomy b1 = -.40**/-.22

Relationship a2 = -.63**/.11 b2 =.02/-.39 Emotional

Competence
status loneliness

a3 = -1.09***/-.42 Relatedness b3 = -.52***/-.03

c' = 1.10***/1.93***

(c = 1.97*** )

Fig. 2  Indirect effect of relationship status on life satisfaction (a) and emotional loneliness (b) through all
three dimensions of need fulfillment. Regression parameters are unstandardized. Parameters on the left dis-
play the effects for female participants and on the right those for male individuals. c = total effect; c’ = direct
effect. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, N = 483

3.2 Longitudinal Analysis

The following analyses are based on the subsample for which longitudinal information
on relationship status, life satisfaction, and loneliness was available (N = 244). When tak-
ing into account the respective relationship types at T0, 71% of singles remained single,
15% of mingles did not change their relationship status and 83% of the partnered individu-
als remained partnered. 14% of the participants decreased in commitment regarding their
relationship status whereas 16% shifted into a higher committed relationship status. With
regard to individuals who decreased in commitment, 48% shifted from a steady relation-
ship into singlehood, 22% from a stable partnership into a mingle relationship and 30%
from mingle to single. Regarding increases in commitment, 41% changed their relationship
status from single to partnered, 46% from mingle to partnered and 13% from single to min-
gle. All transitions in relationship status are summarized in Table 4.
Based upon the analytic strategy by Kamp Dush and Amato (2005), we coded
changes in relationship status with two dichotomous variables, reflecting upward and
downward relationship changes, respectively. Changes from single to mingle, single to
partnered and mingle to partnered were coded 1 in the upward relationship change vari-
able (0 indicating the reference group). Transitions from partnered to mingle, partnered
to single and mingle to single were also coded 1 in the downward relationship change
variable with zero indicating the reference group. Hence, people who did not change

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2459

Table 4  Transitions in Relationship Status T0

relationship status
Single Mingle Partnered
Relationship N % N % N %
Status T1

Single 52 71 10 30 16 12
Mingle 5 7 5 15 7 5
Partnered 16 22 18 55 117 83

*** *** *** ***

-.09 .53 .28 .49 .45

e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5
2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
.86 .64 .90 .78 .70 .87 .73 .89 .81 .75

Life .77
*** Life
satisfaction satisfaction e11
2016 2017
-.10 .30***
-.03 -.17*

Chi-square = 93.57, df = Upward Downward

103, N = 244, CFI = 1.00, relationship relationship
RMSEA = .00 change change

Fig. 3  Structural equation model showing the associations between life satisfaction and increases or
decreases in relationship status. Age, gender, and duration of relationship status in 2016 are included as
covariates. All coefficients are standardized. *** p < .001, * p < .05

their relationship status served as the reference group. In the structural equation models,
we predicted life satisfaction (emotional loneliness) at T1 from life satisfaction (emo-
tional loneliness) at T0 and the two dichotomous variables representing change in rela-
tionship status from T0 to T1. Furthermore, change in relationship status was predicted
from life satisfaction (emotional loneliness) at T0 to investigate potential effects accord-
ing to the selection hypothesis. Figure 3 shows the structural equation model for the
analysis of life satisfaction and Fig. 4 displays the path model for the analysis of emo-
tional loneliness. Although not displayed in Figs. 3 and 4, the models also controlled for
participants’ gender and age, as well as the duration of the current relationship status at
T0.

13
2460 A. Bucher et al.

***
Emotional loneliness .74 Emotional loneliness
e
2016 2017
***
-.22 -.42
*** ***
.35 .52

Chi-square = 6.86, df Upward Downward

= 4, N = 244, CFI relationship relationship
= .98, RMSEA = .05 change change

Fig. 4  Path model showing the associations between emotional loneliness and increases or decreases in
relationship status. Age, gender, and duration of relationship status in 2016 are included as covariates. All
coefficients are standardized. *** p < .001, * p < .05

We found no evidence for effects of life satisfaction at T0 on upward relationship

change, β = − .03, p = .698, or downward relationship change, β = − .10, p = .288. However,
people who moved upwards in the continuum of commitment showed significantly higher
levels of life satisfaction at the second measurement, β = .30, p < .001, controlling for life
satisfaction 1 year earlier. Further analyses revealed that improvements of life satisfaction
occurred for each form of upwards shifting (β = .30 for single to partnered, β = .25 for min-
gle to partnered, and β = .31 for single to mingle, respectively). Downward relationship
change was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction at T1, β = − .17, p = .038. Addi-
tional analyses revealed mostly all downward transitions to go along with decreased life
satisfaction (β = − .22 for partnered to mingle, β = − .22 for partnered to single, and β = .05
for mingle to single, respectively).
With regard to emotional loneliness, we could find a significant effect of upward rela-
tionship change as well as downward relationship change on emotional loneliness at T1.
Participants who shifted into higher committed forms of relationship status showed lower
levels of emotional loneliness at T1, β = − .42, p < .001, whereas the opposite could be
found for participants who reported downward relationship changes, β = .52, p < .001.
Nearly all transitions in terms of upward relationship change were associated with
decreased loneliness at T1 (β = − .60 for single to partnered, β = − .15 for mingle to part-
nered, and β = .04 for single to mingle, respectively). With regard to downward relationship
change all transitions increased emotional loneliness at T1 (β = .17 for partnered to mingle,
β = .58 for partnered to single, and β = .44 for mingle to single, respectively). Additionally,
we found a significant association between emotional loneliness at T0 and upward relation-
ship change, indicating that individuals high on emotional loneliness tended to shift into
more committed relationships, β = .35, p = .001, odds ratio = 1.42. There was no significant
effect of emotional loneliness on downward relationship change, β = − .22, p = .060.

3.3 Additional Analyses

In our longitudinal analyses we tested whether changes in relationship status predict rank
order changes in life satisfaction and emotional loneliness. A complimentary research ques-
tion would be to investigate whether changes into more or less committed forms of part-
nership predict within-person changes in life satisfaction and loneliness. To approach this
question, we used latent change score models as suggested by McArdle (2009). In these

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2461

*** *** *** *** ***

-.10 .53 .29 .49 .45

e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5
2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
.86 .64 .90 .78 .70 .87 .73 .89 .81 .75

Life 1 Life
satisfaction satisfaction
2016 2017

***
-.34
-.02 1

-.09
Chi-square = 89.66,
df = 99, N = 244, *** ∆ Life e11
Upward .41
satisfaction
CFI = 1.00, RMSEA relationship
= .00
change *
-.29
Downward
relationship
change

Fig. 5  Latent change model showing the associations between intra-individual change in life satisfaction
and increases or decreases in relationship status. Age, gender, and duration of relationship status in 2016 are
included as covariates. All coefficients are standardized. *** p < .001, * p < .05

models, a latent change score is estimated which represents the (estimated) within-person
change from one measurement occasions to the next. This latent change score model can
then be predicted by other variables (here: change in relationship status) to examine predic-
tors of inter-individual differences in intra-individual change. The two models we tested
are depicted in Figs. 5 and 6. For life satisfaction the identical pattern of results emerged
compared to the longitudinal analysis used before. Upward relationship change influenced
intra-individual changes in life satisfaction positively, β = .41, p < .001 while the reverse
could be found for downward relationship change, β = − .29, p < .001. However, life satis-
faction at T0 did not predict upward or downward relationship change, β = − .02, p = .785
and β = − .09, p = .336, respectively. Hence, participants who shifted upward (downward)
in their relationship status increased (decreased) in the life satisfaction from T0 to T1.
With regard to emotional loneliness, again, nearly the same findings could be found
as with the cross-lagged analyses before. Upward relationship change predicted a signifi-
cant negative change in emotional loneliness, β = − .49, p < .001, whereas downward rela-
tionship change resulted in a positive change in emotional loneliness, β = .59, p < .001.

13
2462 A. Bucher et al.

Emotional loneliness 1 Emotional loneliness

2016 2017

*** -.19 1
.36
*
-.25

Chi-square = 10.52, ***

df = 6, N = 244, CFI Upward -.49 ∆ Emotional
relationship e
= .93, RMSEA = .06 loneliness
change ***
.59
Downward
relationship
change

Fig. 6  Latent change model showing the associations between intra-individual change in emotional loneli-
ness and increases or decreases in relationship status. Age, gender, and duration of relationship status in
2016 are included as covariates. All coefficients are standardized. *** p < .001, * p < .05

Moreover, also emotional loneliness at T0 predicted upward and downward relationship

change, β = .36, p < .001 and β = − .25, p = .020.

4 Discussion

The current study was the first to incorporate mingles into a research program targeting
the association of relationship status with life satisfaction and loneliness. Additionally, we
investigated whether need fulfillment mediates these associations. Previous research on
the relation of relationship status and well-being examined differences between single and
partnered individuals concerning well-being and loneliness and did not investigate min-
gles (Adamczyk 2016; Adamczyk and Segrin 2015; Simon and Barrett 2010). Following
recommendations to investigate multiple aspects of well-being (Bierman et al. 2006) we
measured life satisfaction and loneliness to cover both positive and negative indicators of
well-being. Additionally, by using a longitudinal design we could gain insight regarding
the temporal dynamics of the effects.
Our results showed a large difference in commitment to the romantic partner between
mingles and participants in committed relationships, corroborating our assumption that
these two groups differ in the commitment dimension. With commitment assumed to be
one of the core dimensions underlying the benefits of romantic relationships (Kamp Dush
and Amato 2005), we expected that also mingles’ life satisfaction falls between life sat-
isfaction of singles and partnered individuals. Confirming our research hypothesis 1, life
satisfaction showed a linear relationship with relationship status, with lowest values for
singles, followed by mingles and persons with committed relationships.
In a longitudinal analysis, Kamp Dush and Amato (2005) found evidence that entering
into a more committed form of relationship resulted in an enhancement of subjective well-
being which could explain the finding that mingles experienced greater life satisfaction

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2463

compared to single individuals: mingles find themselves in a more committed relation-

ship than singles where they can share intimacy and sexual gratification leading to a slight
elevation in their life satisfaction (Soons and Liefbroer 2008). However, compared to
partnered individuals, mingles lack a true commitment to the relationship. We expected
that this would lead to differences in fulfillment of basic psychological needs through the
partner between mingles and partnered individuals. In concordance with study hypothe-
sis 3 our results showed that there were significant differences between these two groups
regarding the fulfillment of the three basic needs for autonomy, competence, and related-
ness: participants in a stable relationship reported higher fulfillment of these needs through
the current partner compared to mingle adults, with the largest difference for relatedness.
Apparently, the more superficial and temporary forms of relationships that characterize the
mingle status do not allow the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs (Dailey 2009).
Of important note, this main effect of relationship status was qualified by an interaction
between relationship status and gender. For women, there was a strong effect of relation-
ship status on all three components of need fulfillment whereas there was no effect on these
three variables for men. This suggests that women in comparison to men do not feel their
needs truly met when they find themselves in a relationship with low commitment.
In a similar vein, and partly in line with our expectations (hypothesis 4), competence
and relatedness (but not autonomy) need fulfillment fully mediated the association between
relationship status and life satisfaction for women, but not for men. These results accom-
pany prior research which showed that the fulfillment of each need through the partner
was individually linked to greater life satisfaction (Patrick et al. 2007). In our study, auton-
omy need satisfaction did not mediate differences between mingle and partnered individu-
als regarding life satisfaction for either men or women. Similarly, León and Núnez (2013)
report that only the needs for competence and relatedness but not for autonomy affected
well-being (see also Neubauer and Voss 2018, and Neubauer et al. 2017, for other stud-
ies finding no incremental predictive validity of autonomy fulfillment). One explanation
could be that the need for autonomy has an essential overlap with the need for competence
and relatedness and can therefore not make an additional explanatory contribution. From a
theoretical point of view, it is also possible that the feeling of autonomy is limited by a high
commitment to the partner.
Regarding emotional loneliness, we also predicted a linear effect of relationship status,
implying that singles would exhibit highest emotional loneliness, followed by mingles and
partnered individuals (hypothesis 2). Again we found support for a linear trend, indicating
higher levels of commitment leading to lower emotional loneliness. The lack of emotional
involvement in a mingle relationship may be an explanation for these results (Rokach and
Brock 1998). As with the effects on life satisfaction, this effect was not moderated by gen-
der, indicating that both men’s and women’s loneliness was affected to a similar degree by
their relationship status. Although mingles are more committed compared to single adults
(who cannot be committed to a romantic partner by definition), the emotional distance in
this rather loose form of partnership (compared to adults in a truly committed partnership)
could explain a higher perception of emotional loneliness.
For emotional loneliness, we expected that specifically the fulfillment of relatedness
need would mediate differences in emotional loneliness between mingles and partnered
adults. Results partially confirmed this hypothesis 5 as not only relatedness need fulfill-
ment showed a statistically meaningful indirect effect but also autonomy need fulfillment.
Again, this effect was observed only for women, but not for men. The role of relatedness
satisfaction in explaining part of the difference in loneliness was to be expected given
the relatedness need’s referring to the meaning of close and caring connections to other

13
2464 A. Bucher et al.

individuals. Mingles do not fully and truly commit to their current partner and therefore
do not experience a close and caring romantic relationship which in turn leads to a higher
emotional loneliness. The lower autonomy need fulfillment could indicate the inability to
truly confirm to this rather loose relationship to turn it into a close and committed one.
Possibly, mingles desire to have a more stable partnership but fail because the partner fears
missing out better opportunities by committing to the relationship. This is rather specula-
tive and should be investigated more deeply in the future by investigating whether these
individuals are mingles by choice (and, hence, autonomously motivated for this kind of
relationship) or not. Freedom of choice could act as a possible moderator concerning the
association between relationship status and outcomes. People who freely decided to have
this kind of relationship might experience lower emotional loneliness and higher life satis-
faction compared to those who could not choose.

4.1 Longitudinal Analyses

Although our data show differences between all three groups regarding life satisfaction and
loneliness, the causality or direction of these effects remains unclear. Following a selection
perspective, it could also be possible that well-adjusted individuals are more likely to enter
into more committed forms of relationships (Kamp Dush and Amato 2005). Better adjusted
persons are perceived to form and remain in stable relationships (Horn et al. 2013). Using
a longitudinal design, our results replicated the findings of Kamp Dush and Amato (2005),
showing that increases in commitment lead to higher life satisfaction. Furthermore, down-
ward relationship change reduced life satisfaction. Concerning emotional loneliness, shift-
ing into more committed types of relationships was associated with reduced loneliness,
whereas decreases in commitment were linked to higher levels of emotional loneliness,
indicating more committed individuals feeling less lonely. However, individuals scoring
high on emotional loneliness also tended to counteract these feelings by shifting into more
committed partnerships. These findings are largely consistent with the assumption that
basic psychological needs act as motives driving human behavior (Sheldon 2011). Accord-
ing to this account the frustration of a basic psychological need is hypothesized to increase
motivation to re-establish the thwarted need. For example, Sheldon and Gunz (2009)
showed that participants who stated more frustration of the need for relatedness reported
more motivation to pursue their dissatisfied need for relatedness. Our results support this
view as they showed that participants who felt lonelier were more likely to find themselves
in a higher committed form of relationship 1 year later. Moreover, when conducting the
analyses predicting intra-individual change, nearly the identical pattern of results could be
observed, indicating changing into higher committed forms of partnership leading to an
increase in life satisfaction and decrease in emotional loneliness, yielding no evidence for
an alternative selection hypothesis.

4.2 Gender Effects

In all analyses involving need fulfillment, we found evidence for moderation effects by
gender. These results were not predicted, and should therefore be considered exploratory.
Regarding all three components of need satisfaction, the effect of relationship status was
statistically significant for women, but not for men. Sexual strategy theories suggest that
women focus more on steady and long-term relationships compared to man (Buss and
Schmitt 1993). The importance of having a strongly committed partnership seems to be

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2465

more pronounced for women (Olmstead et al. 2016). Our results contribute to these find-
ings by showing that men feel their basic psychological needs satisfied regardless if they
find themselves in a mingle or steady relationship.
Gender did not, however, moderate the effect of relationship status on either life satis-
faction or emotional loneliness. That is, men’s and women’s life satisfaction and emotional
loneliness were equally affected by their relationship status, but the mechanism mediating
this association seems to be different: the link between relationship status and life satisfac-
tion as well as emotional loneliness was mediated through need fulfillment for women, but
not for men. For women, being in a mingle partnership might not fulfill their basic psycho-
logical needs to a full degree and this leads to increased emotional loneliness and impaired
life satisfaction. Although men also feel less satisfied and emotionally lonelier when being
mingle, this relationship cannot be explained through need fulfillment. Future research
might consider examining potential other mechanisms (e.g., perceived risk of partner’s sex-
ual infidelity; see Cramer et al. 2001) that can help explain, why male mingles report lower
well-being than males in committed relationships.

4.3 Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations need to be considered regarding the results of the current study. First of
all, the analyses are based on self-reports and can therefore be influenced by biases in the
responses.
Second, as the concept mingle is not well defined yet, it is possible that some partici-
pants who are steadily dating or find themselves in an open relationship tended to choose
the mingle option. The same may count for single individuals who might be single for dif-
ferent reasons like being divorced, widowed or because they did not find the right partner,
yet. Singles are a diverse group (Cotten 1999) and it is not clear if the findings are the
same for the particular subgroups. Moreover, we did not assess in our longitudinal analysis
whether the partner after the transition from the mingle relationship into the stable part-
nership was the same as the mingle partner before. This should be controlled in future
investigations to determine whether mingle relationships are early stages of partnerships or
whether the later stable partnership was started with a new partner, and whether these two
types of transitions are accompanied by similar changes in well-being.
Third, findings show that higher committed forms of relationship are beneficial for peo-
ple’s well-being on average. Nevertheless, individuals might differ in the degree to which
their well-being is affected by transitioning into relationship forms characterized by higher
commitment. Some people might be satisfied with being single and not having any respon-
sibilities towards a partner. Furthermore, a stable partnership is no guarantee for happiness
when it is characterized by emotional or physical abuse. Further investigating relationship
quality as an influential factor regarding the relationship of marital status and well-being
would have been necessary to detect such differences within the specific relationship types.
Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham and Jones (2008) could find that entering in a marriage is asso-
ciated with higher life satisfaction but that the quality of the respective relationship also
matters. Singles show advantages in comparison to those married individuals reporting low
relationship quality, emphasizing the fact that higher committed forms of partnership are
no guarantee for being happy. To conclude, the group differences found in our study reveal
stable partnerships to be more satisfying compared to mingle or single relationships on
average, which may not be true for each individual.

13
2466 A. Bucher et al.

Fourth, although more age heterogeneous than previous studies, the sample of the pre-
sent research was not intended to be a lifespan sample. There is a rich literature on the
importance of social relationships from a lifespan developmental perspective (e.g., Kahn
and Antonucci 1980; Carstensen et al. 1999) which suggests that the effects obtained in the
present study might not be invariant across the whole human lifespan. Hence, an interest-
ing avenue for future research would be to examine potential age differences in the pro-
cesses revealed in the present work with an age stratified sample.
Finally, further research is necessary to illuminate processes which account for the dif-
ferences between mingle and partnered adults concerning emotional loneliness and life sat-
isfaction. There is some current research addressing a relatively new phenomenon which
is called “fear of missing out” that emphasizes the desire to be continually up to date with
what others are doing and to avoid missing rewarding experiences (Przybylski et al. 2013).
This fear of missing out is negatively related to life satisfaction and general mood (Przyb-
ylski et al. 2013). Possibly, similar motives drive persons to stay in a mingle status, as they
fear leaving out better opportunities. This “fear of missing out”—concept should therefore
be integrated in the analyses of well-being with regard to mingles.

5 Conclusion

The findings of our study show that mingles as well as singles were less satisfied with
their lives and experienced greater emotional loneliness than individuals in a committed
relationship. In our longitudinal analysis, we could foster these findings by indicating that
increases in commitment within a 1-year interval were associated with higher life satis-
faction and a lower emotional loneliness whereas decreased commitment was linked to
greater emotional loneliness and reduced life satisfaction. Moreover, only female but not
male mingles differed from partnered adults in fulfillment of the basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. For women, competence and relatedness need
fulfillment fully mediated the link between partner status and life satisfaction concerning
mingles and partnered individuals whereas the connection to emotional loneliness was
especially mediated by relatedness and autonomy need fulfillment. Need fulfillment did not
operate as a mediator for male participants. For men, other processes must be targeted by
future research.

References
Adamczyk, K. (2016). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support among single and part-
nered young adults. Current Psychology: A Journal For Diverse Perspectives On Diverse Psychologi-
cal Issues, 35(4), 674–689. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1214​4-015-9337-7.
Adamczyk, K., & Segrin, C. (2015). Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered
Polish young adults. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychologi-
cal Issues, 34(1), 82–96. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1214​4-014-9242-5.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attach-
ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Bierman, A., Fazio, E. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). A multifaceted approach to the mental health advantage
of the married: Assessing how explanations vary by outcome measure and unmarried group. Journal
of Family Issues, 27(4), 554–582. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01925​13X05​28411​1.

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2467

Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and
mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 1–12. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1475-6811.2010.01248​.x.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human
mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
Campbell, W. K., Sedikides, C., & Bosson, J. (1994). Romantic involvement, self-discrepancy and psy-
chological well-being: A preliminary investigation. Personal Relationships, 1(4), 399–404. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb000​73.x.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A the-
ory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015).
Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures.
Motivation And Emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1103​1-014-9450-1.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family Relations: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 40(1), 97–102. https​://doi.org/10.2307/58566​5.
Cotten, S. R. (1999). Marital status and mental health revisited: Examining the importance of risk fac-
tors and resources. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies,
48(3), 225–233. https​://doi.org/10.2307/58563​1.
Cramer, R. E., Abraham, W. T., Johnson, L. M., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2001). Gender differences in sub-
jective distress to emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation?
Current Psychology: A Journal For Diverse Perspectives On Diverse Psychological Issues, 20(4),
327–336. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1214​4-001-1015-2.
Dailey, R. M. (2009). Confirmation from family members: Parent and sibling contributions to adoles-
cent psychosocial adjustment. Western Journal of Communication, 73(3), 273–299. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/10570​31090​30820​32.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https​://doi.org/10.1207/S1532​
7965P​LI110​4_01.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​7752j​pa490​1_13.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical
analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Inter-
est, 13(1), 3–66. https​://doi.org/10.1177/15291​00612​43652​2.
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality
components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26(3), 340–354.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of
anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communi-
cation Research, 33(2), 152–177. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00936​50205​28536​8.
Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Braehler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German version of the satisfaction
with life scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties, validity, and population-based norms. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 127–132. https​://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a0000​58.
Green, L. R., Richardson, D. S., Lago, T., & Schatten-Jones, E. C. (2001). Network correlates of social
and emotional loneliness in young and older adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27(3), 281–288. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​67201​27300​2.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regres-
sion-based approach. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Jones, B. Q. (2008). Is there something unique about marriage?
The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on ambula-
tory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 239–244. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1216​0-008-9018-y.
Horn, E. E., Xu, Y., Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E., & Emery, R. E. (2013). Accounting for the physical
and mental health benefits of entry into marriage: A genetically informed study of selection and
causation. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 30–41. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0029​803.
Horwitz, A. V., White, H. R., & Howell-White, S. (1996). Becoming married and mental health: A lon-
gitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal Of Marriage And The Family, 58(4), 895–907.
https​://doi.org/10.2307/35397​8.

13
2468 A. Bucher et al.

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865),
540–545. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.33998​89.
Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social sup-
port. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (pp. 253–286). New
York: Academic Press.
Kamp Dush, C. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for sub-
jective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/02654​07505​05643​8.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in
security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfill-
ment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.
Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and
relationship effects. Journal Of Marriage And Family, 65(4), 953–962. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1741-3737.2003.00953​.x.
LeBlanc, V., & Cox, M. A. (2017). Interpretation of the point-biserial correlation coeffcient in the con-
text of a school examination. The Quantitative Methods For Psychology, 13(1), 46–56. https​://doi.
org/10.20982​/tqmp.13.1.p046.
León, J., & Núñez, J. L. (2013). Causal ordering of basic psychological needs and well-being. Social
Indicators Research, 114(2), 243–253. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-012-0143-4.
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data.
Annual Review Of Psychology, 60, 577–605. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.psych​.60.11070​
7.16361​2.
Morris, K., & Fuller, M. (1999). Heterosexual relationships of young women in a rural environment.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4), 531–543. Retrieved from http://www.jstor​.org/
stabl​e/13932​78.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Neubauer, A. B., Schilling, O. K., & Wahl, H.-W. (2017). What do we need at the end of life? Com-
petence, but not autonomy predicts intra-individual fluctuations in subjective well-being in very
old age. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72,
425–435. https​://doi.org/10.1093/geron​b/gbv05​2.
Neubauer, A. B., & Voss, A. (2016). Validation and revision of a German version of the Balanced Meas-
ure of Psychological Needs Scale. Journal of Individual Differences, 37(1), 56–72. https​://doi.
org/10.1027/1614-0001/a0001​88.
Neubauer, A. B., & Voss, A. (2018). The structure of need fulfillment: Separating need satisfaction and
dissatisfaction on between- and within-person level. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
ment, 34, 220–228. https​://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a0003​26.
Olmstead, S. B., Anders, K. M., & Conrad, K. A. (2016). Meanings for sex and commitment among first
semester college men and women: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 46,
46–85. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-016-0777-4.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relation-
ship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92(3), 434–457. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). Loneliness research: A survey of empirical findings. In L. A. Pep-
lau & S. E. Goldston (Eds.), Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and persistent loneli-
ness (pp. 13–46). Rockville: National Institute of Mental Health.
Poortman, A.-R., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). Singles’ relational attitudes in a time of individualization.
Social Science Research, 39(6), 938–949. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssres​earch​.2010.03.012.
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., Dehaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and
behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the Neo-Socioanalytic
Model of Personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality develop-
ment (pp. 11–39). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Rokach, A., & Brock, H. (1998). Coping with loneliness. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 132(1), 107–127. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00223​98980​95992​69.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, H. Cooper, &
L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

13
Together is Better: Higher Committed Relationships Increase… 2469

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commit-
ment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4),
357–387. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb001​77.x.
Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination
of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1313–1321.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and
discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https​://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives on psycho-
logical needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118(4), 552–569. https​://doi.org/10.1037/
a0024​758.
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential require-
ments. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1467–1492. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00589​.x.
Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in early adult-
hood: Does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(2),
168–182. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00221​46510​37234​3.
Soons, J. P. M., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2008). Together is better? Effects of relationship status and resources on
young adults’ well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(4), 603–624. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/02654​07508​09378​9.
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2016). Datenreport 2016: Familie, Lebensform und Kinder.
Retrieved from https​://www.desta​tis.de/DE/Publi​katio​nen/Daten​repor​t/Downl​oads/Daten​repor​t2016​
Kap2.pdf?__blob=publi​catio​nFile​.
Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5. Aufl.). New York: Routledge.
Tesch, I. (2014). Beziehungsstatus: „Mingle“– Wollen wir heute keine Verpflichtungen mehr eingehen?.
Retrieved from https​://www.huffi​ngton​post.de/isabe​l-tesch​/bezie​hungs​statu​s-mingl​e-w_b_46002​
48.html.
Uecker, J. E. (2012). Marriage and mental health among young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 53(1), 67–83. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00221​46511​41920​6.
Umberson, D., & Williams, K. (1999). Family status and mental health. In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan
(Eds.), Handbook of sociology and social research. Handbook of sociology of mental health (pp. 225–
253). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness among Chinese
sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and adjustment? Moti-
vation and Emotion, 30(4), 273–282. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1103​1-006-9041-x.
Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and
loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 52(4), 591–601. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.591.
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.

13