Journal of Happiness Studies (2023) 24:2563–2581

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00692-w

RESEARCH PAPER

Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial

Evidence for the Moderating Effects of Commitment
Readiness

Kenneth Tan1 · Daniel Ho1 · Christopher R. Agnew2

Accepted: 17 September 2023 / Published online: 6 October 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Past research has suggested that the association between romantic relationship status (i.e.,
single vs. coupled) and well-being can be dependent on different aspects of an individual’s
personal life. In the current research, we examined whether commitment readiness (i.e.,
the subjective sense that the current time is “right” to be in a committed romantic relation-
ship) moderates the link between current relationship status and psychological well-being.
With correlational data obtained from three independent samples (two from Singapore,
one cross-cultural comparison between Singapore and USA), we found a significant mod-
erating effect of commitment readiness. Coupled individuals higher in readiness reported
greater levels of well-being than single individuals, whereas coupled individuals lower in
readiness reported lower levels of well-being compared to their single counterparts. Impli-
cations regarding the role of commitment readiness in well-being are discussed.

Keywords Relationship status · Well-being · Single · Relationship receptivity ·

Commitment readiness · Commitment desirability

Research on demographic trends in relationship status has indicated that more adults around
the world are remaining single and are doing so for more years of their life (Himawan et
al., 2017; Jones & Yeung, 2014; Milan, 2013; Simpson, 2016). This trend is particularly
interesting given that research has long suggested that being single is associated with poorer
well-being, an effect that has been replicated across many different studies (e.g., Haring-
Hidore et al., 1985; Stronge et al., 2019) and nations (Diener et al., 1999). Nonetheless, the
assumption that one needs to be in a romantic relationship to enjoy greater well-being has
been challenged by various scholars (e.g., Conley et al., 2013), who argue that relationship

Kenneth Tan
kennethtanyy@smu.edu.sg
1
School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, 10 Canning Rise, Level 5,
179873 Singapore, Singapore
2
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street,
47907-2081 West Lafayette, IN, USA

13
2564 K. Tan et al.

status’s influences on well-being is dependent on various features of an individual’s life

(Purol et al., 2021), such as relationship status satisfaction (Lehmann et al., 2015) and social
approach-avoidance goals (Girme et al., 2016). These views imply that although relation-
ship involvement tends to be beneficial, people show differences in the extent to which
relationship status is associated with their well-being.
One important consideration is the recognition that people can vary in the degree to
which they are receptive to involvement in a committed romantic relationship (Agnew et
al., 2019; Hadden et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2020c). Indeed, a subjective perception of personal
timing—whether the current time seems “right” to be involved in a relationship —appears
to be consequential with respect to both the initial formation and continued maintenance of
a relationship. When the time is considered “right”, one feels ready to pursue or maintain
a close committed relationship. Importantly however, one person might feel exceptionally
ready for a relationship but not be involved in one, whereas another person might not feel
sufficiently ready for a relationship but is nevertheless currently involved in one. We posit
that mismatches between one’s readiness to commit and actual relationship status may be
associated with individual well-being.

1 Relationship Involvement and Well-being: Benefits and Costs

Prior research has alluded to the considerable influence of relationship status on one’s psy-
chological well-being. Particularly, Erikson’s (1963, 1968) theory of psychosocial devel-
opment posits that individuals learn to navigate various psychosocial “crises” specific to
developmental life stages from infancy to adulthood, and the successful resolution of these
challenges ultimately contribute to the formation of their personal identities and the fulfil-
ment of their psychological needs (Maree, 2021). Importantly, individuals begin to engage
in increased exploration of close relationships and develop a greater desire for commitment
and intimacy with others during emerging adulthood (Maree, 2021). Close relationships
help fulfil psychological needs of relatedness as well as affording a sense of security and
trust within them (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Furthermore, given the primacy of romantic partner-
ships in support provision (Reis et al., 2000), close relationships are essential when coping
with stress as well (McPherson et al., 2007; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, con-
sidering the intrinsic psychological desire for close relationships as well as the substantive
benefits they confer, it is expected that one’s relationship status would likely be associated
with psychological well-being.
This is corroborated by past research demonstrating that being coupled can indeed be
positively associated with well-being (e.g., Dush & Amato, 2005; Stronge et al., 2019). This
has been attributed, as least in part, to the provision of social and emotional resources from
a romantic partner that can help to overcome challenges in life (Cohen, 2004), buffer stress
(Tan & Tay, 2022), and augment positive outcomes (Gable et al., 2004). In contrast, single
individuals potentially forgo such benefits to well-being (Soons & Liefbroer, 2008). Single
people may be less likely to experience the fulfilment of relatedness needs (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000), poorer emotional well-being (Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015)
and with negative effects on health and well-being (Holt-Lunstand et al., 2015). Moreover,
remaining single for a longer duration may serve to accentuate the detrimental effects of
singleness.

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2565

However, recent research has challenged the conclusion that coupled status provides
unique well-being benefits (Lucas & Dyrenforth, 2005). For example, single individuals
have reported greater levels of well-being than in previous years (Böger & Huxhold, 2020).
This may be in part due to singles’ involvement in non-romantic relationships that serve
to fulfil their intimacy, emotional and belongingness needs (e.g., Chopik, 2017), having
higher-quality social networks (Kislev, 2021), as well as being able to pursue their individ-
ual interests and aspirations in a more unbridled fashion (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). Beyond
the benefits of staying single, one may also consider the costs of relationship involvement,
which single people have the advantage of avoiding. Prior research has shown that greater
relationship conflict, hurt, and betrayal is associated with an increase in depression as well
as poorer mental and physical health (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Furthermore, poor
quality relationships result in hurt feelings and anger (Lemay et al., 2012), and are more det-
rimental to well-being and health as compared to being single (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2008).
It follows that simply being involved in a relationship does not guarantee psychological
well-being.
Of particular relevance to the current work is whether individuals are satisfied with their
relationship status (Lehmann et al., 2015). Satisfaction with one’s own relationship status
may represent a bottom-up approach of choice, where the fulfilment of salient life domain
goals (i.e., those who want to be partnered are partnered) result in positive influences on
well-being (Oh et al., 2021). In a similar vein, we posited that examining the concept of
one’s perceived readiness to enter a romantic relationship would highlight a better under-
standing of how relationship status may be associated with psychological well-being. To
the extent that one’s feelings of “being ready” promote positive relationship-forming or
relationship-maintaining attitudes and behaviours that strengthen a relationship and result
in a greater fulfilling of one’s fundamental goals, commitment readiness may be another
crucial piece of the puzzle to understand the extent to which single or coupled individuals
experience enhanced or undermined psychological well-being.

2 Commitment Readiness: Amplifying Benefits and Costs of

Relationship Involvement

Relationship receptivity theory (Agnew et al., 2019), in which the concept of commitment
readiness is embedded, suggests that an individual’s subjective sense of timing plays a
decisive role in motivating behaviours and cognitions toward relationship formation and
maintenance. Receptiveness to enter a relationship to fulfil one’s need may vary based on
both dispositional and situational factors that affect one’s openness to involvement in one
(Hadden et al., 2018). For example, the emotional trauma associated with coming out of a
recent breakup may discourage a particular individual from immediately looking for a new
partner, while another individual may struggle with the anxiety associated with thoughts of
remaining single in the future and hence be constantly on the lookout for a potential partner.
Across several domains, readiness has been identified to be a key component for ini-
tiating change and engaging in maintenance behaviours (e.g., Norcross et al., 2011). Par-
ticularly within the domain of romantic relationships, previous work has highlighted the
positive association between readiness and behaviours that encourage relationship initiation
(Hadden et al., 2018), where individuals who report a higher degree of readiness on one day

13
2566 K. Tan et al.

engaged in more “pursuit” behaviours like flirting and physical touch, paired with increased
interest in forming a relationship, the following day. People who entered relationships with
higher readiness also expressed greater commitment to them. Moreover, higher readiness is
linked to greater use of relationship maintenance strategies (Agnew et al., 2019), not only
boasting an individual’s commitment to a relationship, but was also associated with the
enactment of overt behaviours, such as less destructive responses to conflict. These findings
suggest the potential of readiness to not only promote the formation of new relationships
with greater initial commitment, but also to facilitate the strengthening of existing ones.
Given the strong association between readiness and relationship-promoting behaviours, we
would expect that individuals high in readiness would tend to act in a pro-relationship man-
ner, entailing more fruitful and intimate interactions within their relationship. Additionally,
considering the relative importance of seeking and forming close relationships with oth-
ers in contributing to one’s psychological well-being (Erikson, 1968), it is expected that
readiness would be associated with greater psychological well-being to the extent that these
pro-relationship behaviours successfully facilitate the greater formation and maintenance of
these meaningful relationships.
Although no prior research has examined the issue, it seems clear that if readiness moti-
vates prospective relationship initiation as well as relationship maintenance behaviours and
cognitions, we should expect readiness to moderate the effect of relationship status on psy-
chological well-being. Given that a higher degree of readiness is associated with a stron-
ger incentive for an individual to develop a relationship, paired with greater tendencies to
engage in relationship-promoting behaviours, this should be linked to deeper, more fulfill-
ing relationships that satisfy psychological needs to a greater extent. Therefore, we predict
that higher levels of readiness would be associated with greater psychological well-being
from being in a relationship, amplifying the benefits of relationship involvement. However,
consider a person low in readiness who is currently in a romantic relationship. For example,
this could be someone who is looking to prioritize personal growth but is in a relationship
with their high school sweetheart and perceives social network pressure to continue in the
relationship (Agnew, 2014). Conversely, such a person would have a lower incentive to
maintain the relationship they find themselves in, and hence exert less effort to develop it
further (Agnew et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is possible that they might feel “stuck” or non-
voluntarily dependent on their current partner in so far as they do not feel ready but are in
a committed relationship, thereby amplifying the costs of relationship involvement (Tan et
al., 2018). Hence, we predict that lower levels of readiness would be associated with lower
psychological well-being for coupled individuals.
A single person high in readiness perceives that the “timing is right” and appropriate for
them to become involved in a romantic relationship. They might desire a romantic partner
(MacDonald & Park, 2022; Tan et al., 2020c) not be satisfied with being single (Lehmann
et al., 2015), and thus evidence lower well-being as compared to their coupled counterparts.
However, for single individuals who are low in readiness and do not think that the timing
is currently “right” to be in a romantic relationship, not being involved in one provides the
benefit of avoiding negative experiences that accompany poor quality relationships (or the
prospect of poor-quality relationships), thereby reducing the costs of relationship involve-
ment. In this situation, single individuals low in readiness should report higher levels of
well-being than their coupled counterparts.

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2567

Importantly, prior research has shown strong positive effects between subjective socio-
economic status (SES) and well-being (Tan et al., 2020a). Beyond the main effect of SES,
studies investigating the moderating effect of relationship status (i.e., single vs. married)
showed that being married buffered against lower SES in terms of mortality (Choi & Marks,
2011; Smith & Waitzman, 1994) as well as mental health (Carlson & Kail, 2018). Beyond
merely examining relationship status, research examining relationship quality also high-
lighted how partner commitment in close relationships can also buffer the effect of lower
SES on well-being (Tan et al., 2020b). Essentially, to the extent that readiness amplifies the
benefits and costs of relationship status, it is possible that relationship status X SES interac-
tion might also be amplified by readiness. Hence, we conducted additional analyses control-
ling for subjective SES and also examined whether SES further moderates our hypothesized
effects of relationship status X readiness on well-being.
In summary, the present research aimed to assess how commitment readiness might mod-
erate the association between individuals’ current relationship status and their psychological
well-being. We hypothesized that readiness would be positively associated with psycho-
logical well-being (H1). We also hypothesized that readiness would moderate the effect
of being single or coupled on psychological well-being (H2) (see Fig. 1). Specifically, we
hypothesized that there would be a positive association between relationship involvement
and well-being for those higher in readiness and a negative association between relationship
involvement and well-being for those lower in readiness.

3 Study 1

Study 1 was designed to provide initial correlational evidence regarding the hypothesized
moderating effects of readiness on the association between relationship status and psycho-
logical well-being using data obtained from a sample of undergraduate students. This and
the subsequent studies were not preregistered, but all data and analytic code are available
on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/fxa9y/?view_only=d8289fd579b94
ba4b0cced8d89599ff3.

Fig. 1 Hypothesised moderating effect of Commitment Readiness on the association between Relation-
ship Status (Single vs. Coupled) and Psychological Well-being

13
2568 K. Tan et al.

3.1 Method

3.1.1 Participants and Procedure

Seven-hundred and ninety-four young adults (185 men, 609 women; 364 currently coupled;
Mage = 22.10, SD = 1.614) from a large public university in Singapore were recruited to
complete an online survey and were remunerated SGD$5 for participation. To maximise
power, we collected data from as many participants as possible throughout two semesters.
Participants completed IRB-approved informed consent, answered questions regarding their
relationship status and well-being as well as the commitment readiness scale and measures
of perceived partner commitment amongst others. Finally, they answered demographic
questions before being debriefed. Assuming a two-tailed test and an alpha of 0.05, sensitiv-
ity power analyses using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) showed that this sample size provides
80% power to detect an effect of partial r2 = 0.009 and 60% power to detect an effect of par-
tial r2 = 0.006 (Da Silva Frost & Ledgerwood, 2020), thus we had adequate power to detect
hypothesized effects if present.

3.1.2 Measures

3.1.2.1 Relationship Status Relationship status was assessed with a single self-report mea-
sure asking participants if they were currently in a committed romantic relationship (1 = Yes,
0 = No).

3.1.2.2 Psychological Well-being Well-being was assessed with an 18-item scale that mea-
sures aspects such as autonomy, personal growth, and self-acceptance (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).
Participants rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) the
extent to which they agreed with each item on the scale (e.g., “Some people wander aim-
lessly through life, but I am not one of them”, “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situ-
ation in which I live”; α = 0.84).

3.1.2.3 Commitment Readiness Commitment readiness was assessed using an 8-item

scale that measures the extent to which individuals are currently ready for a committed
romantic relationship (Agnew et al., 2019), with participants rating on a 9-point Likert scale
(0 = Strongly Disagree, 8 = Strongly Agree) the extent to which they agreed with each item
(e.g., “I feel that this is the “right time” for me to be in a committed relationship”, “Now
is not the time for me to be involved in a committed romantic relationship” [R]; α = 0.95).

3.1.2.4 Subjective SES Subjective SES was assessed using the MacArthur scale of Subjec-
tive Social Status (Adler et al., 2000), a 1-item measure rated on a 10-point scale (0 = bottom

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2569

rung, 10 = top rung) that assessed a person’s perceived rank relative to others in their group,
in this case, Singapore.

3.2 Results

We report descriptive statistics and correlations among Study 1 variables in Table 1. We

tested initially for a three-way interaction between participant-reported gender, relation-
ship status and commitment readiness (in this and the subsequent two studies) and did not
find any significant three-way interactions, so gender was not included further in model
tests. Multiple regression was used to test for hypothesized main effects and the predicted
two-way interaction between relationship status (0 = single, 1 = coupled) and mean-centered
commitment readiness as predictors of well-being.
Consistent with H1, readiness was significantly and positively associated with psycho-
logical well-being [b = 0.069, t(790) = 3.938, p < .001, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.035,
0.103]. Consistent with past research, relationship status also significantly though modestly
associated with well-being [b = − 0.135, t(790) = -2.078, p = .038, CI = − 0.262, − 0.007].
Consistent with H2, we found a significant two-way interaction between relationship sta-
tus and commitment readiness [b = 0.155, t(790) = 4.627, p < .001, CI = 0.089, 0.220]. Simple
slopes analysis at high (+ 1 SD) and low (− 1 SD) levels of readiness on well-being indicated
that at low levels of readiness, there was a negative association between relationship status
and well-being [b = − 0.451, t(790) = -4.154, p < .001, CI = − 0.664, − 0.238]. At high levels
of readiness, there was a positive association between relationship status and well-being
[b = 0.181, t(790) = 2.351, p = .019, CI = 0.030, 0.333]. That is, coupled individuals reported
lower well-being compared to single individuals at low levels of readiness whereas it was
the opposite at high levels of readiness (see Fig. 2).
Analysing simple slopes at different levels of relationship status showed a positive asso-
ciation between readiness and well-being when single [b = 0.069, t(790) = 3.938, p < .001,
CI = 0.035, 0.103]. This association was significantly stronger for those currently involved
in a romantic relationship [b = 0.224, t(790) = 7.862, p < .001, CI = 0.168, 0.279].
We tested whether this interaction effect would remain while controlling for subjective
SES. The interaction remained significant [b = 0.151, t(790) = 4.586, p < .001, CI = 0.086,
0.215]. Finally, we also tested whether subjective SES would moderate the effects of rela-
tionship status x readiness on wellbeing. This three-way interaction was not significant
[b = − 0.001, t(785) = -0.687, p = .945, CI = − 0.042, 0.039].

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among Study 1 Variables
1 2 3 4 M (SD)
1. Readiness - 5.28 (2.05)
2. Psychological Well-being 0.30** - 4.90 (0.74)
3. Relationship Status 0.59** 0.16** 0.46 (0.50)
4. Socioeconomic Status 0.11** 0.21** 0.06 - 5.91 (1.54)
Note: **p < .01

13
2570 K. Tan et al.

Fig. 2 Relationship Status predicting Psychological Well-Being at High versus Low Levels of Commit-
ment Readiness, Study 1

4 Study 2

Study 2 provided an opportunity to test the hypothesized moderating role of commitment

readiness using data obtained from a community sample of individuals residing in Sin-
gapore. This sample helps to rectify the participant gender imbalance as well as the age
and SES range restrictions in the Study 1 sample of undergraduate students. In addition to
replicating our hypothesis tests, we again examined if our effects would hold when con-
trolling for both gender and age, as well as whether gender and age would moderate the
hypothesized effects, given prior research showing the effects of discrimination on well-
being (Girme et al., 2022a) for older single adults (DePaulo & Morris, 2005) as well as for
single women (Ji, 2015).

4.1 Method

4.1.1 Participants and Procedure

Four-hundred and forty adults (220 men, 220 women; 220 currently coupled; age M = 29.98,
SD = 5.541) residing in Singapore were recruited via the Dynata Panel service. Once again,
participants answered demographic questions about relationship status, SES, gender, and
age as well as completing measures of well-being and commitment readiness before being
debriefed. Sensitivity power analyses using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) showed that this
sample size provides 80% power to detect an effect of partial r2 = 0.018.

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2571

4.1.2 Measures

Relationship Status, Commitment Readiness (α = 0.87), Psychological Well-being (α = 0.81),

and Subjective SES were assessed as described previously.

4.2 Results

We report descriptive statistics and correlations among Study 2 variables in Table 2. Fol-
lowing the identical analytic approach described in the previous study, consistent with H1,
readiness significantly predicted psychological well-being, with higher levels of readiness
associated with higher levels of psychological well-being [b = 0.094, t(433) = 3.521, p < .001,
95% CI = 0.041, 0.146]. Although significantly correlated, relationship status did not predict
well-being when assessed as a main effect in the model [b = 0.115, t(433) = 0.115, p = .086].
Consistent with H2, there was also a significant two-way interaction between relation-
ship status and commitment readiness [b = 0.119, t(433) = 2.990, p = .003; CI = 0.041, 0.197].
A simple slopes analysis of relationship status at high (+ 1 SD) and low (− 1 SD) levels
of readiness showed that there was a positive association between relationship status and
well-being at high levels of readiness [b = 0.315, t(433) = 3.403, p = .007, CI = 0.133, 0.497]
whereas there was no significant effect at low levels of readiness [b = − 0.086, t(433) =
-0.889, p = .374, CI = − 0.275, 0.104]. That is, coupled individuals reported lower well-being
compared to single individuals at low levels of readiness whereas it was the opposite at
high levels of readiness (see Fig. 3). Examining simple slopes at different levels of rela-
tionship status revealed that there was a positive association between readiness and well-
being when single [b = 0.094, t(433) = 3.521, p < .001, CI = 0.041, 0.146], but this association
was significantly stronger for those currently involved in romantic relationships [b = 0.213,
t(433) = 7.18, p < .001, CI = 0.154, 0.271].
We tested whether this interaction effect would remain while controlling for age as well
as subjective SES. The interaction remained significant [b = 0.174, t(433) = 4.384, p < .001,
CI = 0.096, 0.252]. Finally, we also tested whether subjective SES would moderate the
effects of relationship status x readiness on wellbeing. This three-way interaction was not
significant [b = 0.027, t(427) = 1.293, p = .197, CI = − 0.014, 0.069].

5 Study 3

Studies examining relationship status and well-being are typically homogenous in nature,
showcasing how cross-cultural comparisons are needed to establish the generalizability of
our findings. This is especially important since prior research has highlighted cultural dif-
ferences in the attitudes and perceptions surrounding one’s relationship status, particularly

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among Study 2 Variables
1 2 3 4 M (SD)
1. Readiness - 4.65 (1.68)
2. Psychological Well-being 0.38** - 4.43 (0.71)
3. Relationship Status 0.35** 0.21** - 0.50 (0.50)
4. Socioeconomic Status 0.07 0.26** 0.14** - 6.04 (1.86)
Note: **p < .01

13
2572 K. Tan et al.

Fig. 3 Relationship Status predicting Psychological Well-Being at High versus Low Levels of Readiness,
Study 2

in terms of how “Eastern” cultures emphasize the importance of marriage and discriminate
against singles compared to “Western” cultures (Himawan et al., 2018). Hence, Study 3
used data obtained from two countries, the United States and Singapore, to determine if
the findings obtained in the first two studies replicate in different cultures. Specifically, the
United States has typically been labelled as “Western”, and “Westerners” typically endorse
independent self-construals, which is characterized by separation from others, primacy of
personal goals and self-expression. On the other hand, Singapore being in Asia is typically
labelled as “Eastern”, and “Easterners” typically endorse interdependent self-construals,
which is characterized by valuing close connections to others, maintaining social norms and
harmony, and the primacy of collective goals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This is corrobo-
rated by their individualism scores on Hofstede’s 6-D Model of National Culture, with USA
scoring 91 and Singapore scoring 20 (Hofstede Insights, 2023). As such, singlehood might
be viewed especially detrimentally in “Eastern” compared to “Western” cultures. Hence,
it is possible that the effects of relationship status X commitment readiness on well-being
might also be different for individuals from “Eastern” compared to “Western” cultures.
Furthermore, given the growing body of work attesting to the importance of desire for a
relationship in predicting well-being among single people (e.g., Kislev, 2021; MacDonald
& Park, 2022), we also tested whether our hypothesized interaction between relationship
status and commitment readiness remained significant above and beyond one’s desire for a
committed relationship.

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2573

5.1 Method

5.1.1 Participants and Procedure

Five-hundred and thirty-two adults (198 men, 329 women, 5 undisclosed; 268 currently
coupled; age M = 28.96, SD = 5.897) residing in Singapore (n = 268) and the USA (n = 259)
were recruited via the Qualtrics panel service (5 participants did not report their country).
Participants completed informed consent as well as measures of commitment readiness,
psychological well-being, and demographic questions such as their relationship status,
gender, age, and subjective SES before being debriefed. Sensitivity power analyses using
G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) showed that this sample provides 80% power to detect an effect
of partial r2 = 0.015.

5.1.2 Measures

Relationship Status, Commitment Readiness (α = 0.89), Psychological Well-being (α = 0.79),

and Subjective SES were assessed as described previously.

5.1.2.1 Commitment Desirability Commitment desirability was assessed using a 5-item

scale that measured the extent to which individuals desires a committed romantic relation-
ship at the current point in time (Tan et al., 2020c) with participants rating on a 9-point
Likert scale (0 = Strongly Disagree, 8 = Strongly Agree) the extent to which they agreed with
each item (e.g., “I want to be in a committed relationship”, “Maintaining a committed
romantic relationship is important to me”; α = 0.88).

5.2 Results

We report descriptive statistics and correlations among Study 3 variables in Table 3. Fol-
lowing the identical analytic approach described in the previous studies, consistent with
H1, readiness significantly predicted psychological well-being, with higher levels of readi-
ness associated with higher levels of psychological well-being [b = 0.074, t(528) = 2.968,
p = .003, 95% CI = 0.025, 0.123]. Once again, although modestly correlated, relationship
status did not significantly predict well-being when assessed as a main effect [b = − 0.077,
t(528) = -1.124, p = .261, CI = − 0.210, 0.057].
Consistent with H2, there was a significant two-way interaction between relationship
status and commitment readiness [b = 0.148, t(528) = 4.113, p < .001; CI = 0.077, 0.219].
A simple slopes analysis of relationship status at high (+ 1 SD) and low (− 1 SD) levels

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among Study 3 Variables
1 2 3 4 5 M (SD)
1. Readiness - 4.89 (1.89)
2. Desirability 0.68** - 5.70 (1.88)
3. Psychological Well-being 0.34** 0.29** - 4.50 (0.76)
4. Relationship Status 0.43** 0.28** 0.11* - 0.50 (0.50)
5. Socioeconomic Status 0.03 0.04 0.22** 0.14** - 5.63 (1.92)
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01

13
2574 K. Tan et al.

Fig. 4 Relationship Status predicting Psychological Well-Being at High versus Low Levels of Readiness,
Study 3

of readiness showed that there was a positive association between relationship status and
well-being at high levels of readiness [b = 0.204, t(528) = 2.135, p = .033, CI = 0.016, 0.391],
whereas there was also a negative effect at low levels of readiness [b = − 0.357, t(528) =
-3.674, p = .003, CI = − 0.547, − 0.166]. Specifically, coupled individuals reported lower
well-being compared to single individuals at low levels of readiness whereas it was the
opposite at high levels of readiness (see Fig. 4). Examining simple slopes at different lev-
els of relationship status revealed that there was a positive association between readiness
and well-being when single [b = 0.074, t(528) = 2.968, p = .003, CI = 0.025, 0.123], but this
association was significantly stronger for those currently involved in romantic relationships
[b = 0.222, t(528) = 8.519, p < .001, CI = 0.171, 0.273].
Again, we tested whether this interaction effect would remain while controlling for
age as well as subjective SES; it remained significant [b = 0.166, t(526) = 4.684, p < .001,
CI = 0.096, 0.236]. Furthermore, we tested whether culture/country of residence (0 = Singa-
pore, 1 = USA) moderated the effects of relationship status X readiness on wellbeing. There
was no significant three-way interaction [b = − 0.096, t(519) = -1.321, p = .187, CI = − 0.238,
0.047].
Finally, we tested whether our hypothesized moderation of relationship status X readi-
ness on wellbeing would remain significant when controlling for commitment desirability
as well as the relationship status X desirability interaction. Our hypothesized moderation
of relationship status X readiness remained significant [b = − 0.155, t(526) = 3.065, p = .002,
CI = 0.056, 0.255]. There was no main effect of desirability [b = 0.038, t(526) = 1.433,
p = .153, CI = − 0.014, 0.090] nor any effect of relationship status X desirability [b = − 0.016,
t(526) = − 0.324, p = .746, CI = − 0.113, 0.081] on well-being.

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2575

5.3 Integrative Data Analysis

Our hypothesized interaction between relationship status and commitment readiness was
found to be largely consistent across the three studies. Nonetheless, we also conducted an
integrative data analysis (IDA; Curran & Hussong, 2009), a statistical aggregation approach
used with multiple datasets to showcase an overall assessment of study hypotheses across
samples. As preparation for the IDA, readiness was standardized across samples. Results
from the IDA indicated that the two-way interaction between relationship status and com-
mitment readiness was robust [b = 0.246, t(1757) = 6.358, p < .001; CI = 0.170, 0.322]. A
simple slopes analysis of relationship status at high (+ 1 SD) and low (− 1 SD) levels of
readiness showed that there was a positive association between relationship status and well-
being at high levels of readiness [b = 0.207, t(1757) = 4.082, p < .001, CI = 0.108, 0.307],
whereas there was also a negative effect at low levels of readiness [b = − 0.285, t(1757)
= -4.948, p < .001, CI = − 0.398, − 0.172]. Again, coupled individuals reported lower well-
being compared to single individuals at low levels of readiness whereas it was the opposite
at high levels of readiness (see Fig. 5). Similarly, examining simple slopes at different lev-
els of relationship status revealed that there was a positive association between readiness
and well-being when single [b = 0.147, t(1757) = 6.020, p < .001, CI = 0.099, 0.195], but this
association was significantly stronger for those currently involved in romantic relationships
[b = 0.393, t(1757) = 13.032, p < .001, CI = 0.334, 0.452].

Fig. 5 Relationship Status predicting Psychological Well-Being at High versus Low Levels of Readiness,
Integrative Data Analysis

13
2576 K. Tan et al.

6 General Discussion

Findings from three independent samples of participants (two from Singapore, one cross-
cultural comparison between Singapore and USA) provided strong evidence support-
ing how commitment readiness amplified the benefits and costs of romantic relationship
involvement. Readiness was significantly positively associated with psychological well-
being. More importantly, results revealed a significant interaction between readiness and
relationship status. At higher levels of commitment readiness, individuals reported greater
well-being if they were in a relationship, as compared to individuals who were not coupled.
In contrast, at lower levels of readiness, individuals reported lower well-being if they were
in a romantic relationship, as compared to individuals who were not in one. These results
highlight the importance of commitment readiness as a significant moderator, adding to
recent research challenging conventional wisdom that simply being involved in a romantic
relationship is beneficial for well-being.
Furthermore, our hypothesized interaction held controlling for potential covariates such
as gender, age, and SES. There were no gender or age main effects on well-being, but there
was a significant positive main effect of subjective SES on well-being. Although it was ini-
tially posited that readiness could possibly amplify the effects of relationship status X SES
on well-being, we found no such effect. Given that our hypothesized interaction between
relationship status X readiness held controlling for SES, we are more confident regarding
the validity of commitment readiness as an important moderator in amplifying the benefits
and costs of being coupled. Furthermore, recent research has also found that lack of social
support and discrimination contribute to single individuals’ reports of lower well-being
compared to coupled individuals (DePaulo & Morris, 2005; Girme et al., 2022a; Gordon
et al., 2016; Stronge et al., 2019). Hence, it could be possible that the moderating effect of
readiness might be different based on gender, age as well. However, these covariates did
not further moderate the interaction between relationship status and commitment readiness
on well-being. Thus, it was not the case that only a subset of single or coupled individuals
reported different levels of well-being as a function of readiness, which highlights how the
subjective sense of readiness might be a relatively homogenous experience for single and
coupled individuals. Nonetheless, being mindful of diverse singlehood or coupled experi-
ences remains important for future research (e.g., Girme et al., 2022b).
We see individuals who are low in readiness but find themselves in committed romantic
relationships as a particularly interesting group to consider. As mentioned, these could be
individuals who are looking to prioritize personal goal pursuits over relationship involve-
ment, but nonetheless find themselves already in a committed relationship that they may
now feel “stuck in” (Agnew et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2018). Indeed, we found that coupled
individuals who felt less ready reported lower well-being. Given the IDA showed evidence
for a negative association between relationship status and well-being at low levels of readi-
ness, future research could examine if relationship quality attenuates the negative associa-
tion between readiness and well-being for those who are currently involved in relationships.
It is also interesting to note the prevailing main effect of readiness on well-being across
all three studies, where even single people who felt more ready for relationships, despite
not currently being involved in one, consistently reported higher levels of well-being. With
reference to previous work on relationship status satisfaction (Lehmann et al., 2015) and
relationship desire (Kislev, 2021), one might initially expect that a mismatch between an

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2577

individual’s readiness for a relationship and actual relationship status (i.e., being ready for
a relationship but not being able to find a romantic partner) would result in lower well-
being. Future research should examine whether readiness when being single or partnered is
associated with one’s satisfaction with the status quo in terms of voluntary and involuntary
singlehood (Lehmann et al., 2015) and whether it may serve to mediate the interaction effect
of relationship status and commitment readiness on well-being. Feeling particularly ready
for a relationship could be an indication that an individual’s current needs are being fulfilled
and that they are primed for a relationship opportunity should one arise. From this, we can
appreciate the robust effect of readiness on well-being, boasting commitment readiness as a
new and potentially important construct when considering well-being.

6.1 Limitations and Future Directions

The current research has several limitations that we wish to raise. First, the data presented in
our current studies are correlational in nature. It could be possible that well-being influences
readiness instead of our hypothesized direction (although exploratory analyses did not find
an interaction between relationship status and well-being on readiness), and future research
could attempt to manipulate readiness to establish clear causality. Beyond understanding
causality, a focus on the longitudinal course of readiness on well-being would be valuable.
For example, there might be differential effects for someone who is ready for a relationship
but has been unpartnered for a long period of time as compared to one who is unpartnered
only for a short while. Tracking the developmental trajectory of single/partnered individu-
als and how they wax and wane with respect to readiness and well-being would provide a
valuable descriptive account of within-person effects of relationship transitions (or non-
transitions) as well as information regarding whether there are bi-directional/cross-lagged
associations between readiness and well-being (e.g., Oh et al., 2021). This could serve to
uncover underlying pathways explaining the association between readiness and well-being.
Another limitation of the current study was that we did not measure perceptions of social
support availability in our current samples. As previously mentioned, recent research has
found that the lack of social support contributes to single individuals’ reports of lower well-
being compared to coupled individuals (Girme et al., 2022a). It is possible that for those
who are high in readiness, the lack of social support availability is especially salient for
single vs. coupled individuals, whereas for those who are low in readiness, the lack of social
support availability becomes especially salient for coupled vs. single individuals. Hence,
perceived social support could be a potential mediator for the moderation between relation-
ship status and commitment readiness on well-being.
The current research also boasts several strengths. This set of studies represents the first
attempt to investigate empirically the moderating role of commitment readiness and how
it might be associated with well-being for single vs. coupled individuals. The moderation
results replicated across three samples in three different contexts, including a sample of
undergraduate students among whom being single is normative (Study 1), in a sample of
adults controlling for SES and age (Study 2), and with participants from different national
settings (Study 3). Moreover, the current investigation is one of few to investigate how indi-
vidual differences can moderate the link between relationship status and well-being, such as
approach/avoidance goals (Girme et al., 2016) or attachment (MacDonald & Park, 2022).
Furthermore, we included data from samples that are not Western, and beyond “WEIRD” in

13
2578 K. Tan et al.

nature (Henrich et al., 2010). However, we should take note that individuals from Singapore
are still typically educated, industrialized and rich (E, I, and R). As such, one could look to
collect samples from other countries that represent greater cultural diversity for greater con-
fidence in the generalizability of our results. These initial findings suggest the importance
of considering the functions of readiness within the context of close relationships and we
encourage future investigations in this area.

Funding Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by an Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1
grant from the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE).

Data Availability The current research was not preregistered. All data, materials and syntax can be found at
https://osf.io/fxa9y/?view_only=d8289fd579b94ba4b0cced8d89599ff3.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Research Involving Human Participants Statement All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the SMU Institutional Review Board and with
the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Adamczyk, K., & Segrin, C. (2015). Direct and indirect effects of young adults’ relationship status on life
satisfaction through loneliness and perceived social support. Psychologica Belgica, 55(4), 196–211.
https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.bn
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objec-
tive social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white
women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
Agnew, C. R. (Ed.). (2014). Social influences on romantic relationships: Beyond the dyad. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Agnew, C. R., Hadden, B. W., & Tan, K. (2019). It’s about time: Readiness, commitment, and stability
in close relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 1046–1055. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550619829060
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attach-
ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Böger, A., & Huxhold, O. (2020). The changing relationship between partnership status and loneliness:
Effects related to aging and historical time. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sci-
ences & Social Sciences, 75, 1423–1432. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby153
Carlson, D. L., & Kail, B. L. (2018). Socioeconomic variation in the association of marriage with depressive
symptoms. Social Science Research, 71, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.008

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2579

Choi, H., & Marks, N. F. (2011). Socioeconomic status, Marital Status Continuity and Change, Marital Conflict,
and Mortality. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(4), 714–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264310393339
Chopik, W. J. (2017). Associations among relational values, support, health, and well-being across the adult
lifespan. Personal Relationships, 24, 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12187
Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of
popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467087
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data
sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914
da Silva Frost, A., & Ledgerwood, A. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial
on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, https://doi.
org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determina-
tion of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 57–83.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli162&3_01
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of prog-
ress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for sub-
jective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407505056438
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. WW Norton.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis
program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The
intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Faingataa, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Happily single: The link between relation-
ship status and well-being depends on avoidance and approach social goals. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 7, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615599828
Girme, Y. U., Park, Y., & MacDonald, G. (2022b). Coping or Thriving? Reviewing Intrapersonal, Interper-
sonal, and Societal Factors Associated With Well-Being in Singlehood From a Within-Group Perspec-
tive. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221136119
Girme, Y. U., Sibley, C. G., Hadden, B. W., Schmitt, M. T., & Hunger, J. M. (2022a). Unsupported and
stigmatized? The association between relationship status and well-being is mediated by social support
and social discrimination. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 425–435. https://doi.
org/10.1177/19485506211030102
Gordon, T. (2016). Single women: On the margins? Macmillan International Higher Education.
Hadden, B. W., Agnew, C. R., & Tan, K. (2018). Commitment readiness and relationship formation. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1242–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218764668
Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and subjective
well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947–953. https://doi.
org/10.2307/352338
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. https://doi.
org/10.1038/466029a
Himawan, K. K., Bambling, M., & Edirippulige, S. (2017). Modernization and singlehood in Indonesia:
Psychological and social impacts. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 499–506. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.09.008
Himawan, K. K., Bambling, M., & Edirippulige, S. (2018). The asian single profiles: Discovering many faces
of never married adults in Asia. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 3667–3689. https://doi.org/10.1177/019
2513X18789205
Hofstede Insights (2023, May 10). Country comparison tool Hofstede-Insights. https://www.hofstede-
insights.com/country-comparison-tool
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 ambulatory blood
pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12160-008-9018-y

13
2580 K. Tan et al.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isola-
tion as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10,
227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
Ji, Y. (2015). Between tradition and modernity: Leftover women in Shanghai. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily, 77, 1057–1073.
Jones, G. W., & Yeung, W. J. J. (2014). Marriage in Asia. Journal of Family Issues, 35(12), 1567–1583.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14538029
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 472–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472
Kislev, E. (2021). Reduced relationship desire is associated with better life satisfaction for singles in Ger-
many: An analysis of pairfam data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38, 2073–2083.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211005024
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.
Lehmann, V., Tuinman, M. A., Braeken, J., Vingerhoets, A. J., SanDerman, R., & Hagedoorn, M. (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
Lemay, E. P. Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and interpersonal consequences of
hurt feelings and anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 982–1006. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0030064
Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2005). The myth of marital bliss? Psychological Inquiry, 16, 111–115.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447271
MacDonald, G., & Park, Y. (2022). Associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with life satisfaction,
satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner. Personal Relationships, 29, 163–176.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12416
Maree, J. G. (2021). The psychosocial development theory of Erik Erikson: Critical overview. Early Child
Development and Care, 191(7–8), 1107–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1845163
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-
tion. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
McPherson, C. J., Wilson, K. G., & Murray, M. A. (2007). Feeling like a burden: Exploring the perspectives
of patients at the end of life. Social Science & Medicine, 64(2), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2006.09.013
Milan, A. (2013). Marital status: Overview, 2011. Component of Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 91-209-X.
Statistics Canada. Minister of Industry. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/
article/11788-eng.pdf
Norcross, J. C., Krebs, P. M., & Prochaska, J. O. (2011). Stages of change. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
67, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20758
Oh, J., Chopik, W. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2021). Happiness singled out: Bidirectional associations between
singlehood and life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0), https://doi.
org/10.1177/01461672211049049
Purol, M. F., Keller, V. N., Oh, J., Chopik, W. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2021). Loved and lost or never loved at all?
Lifelong marital histories and their links with subjective well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychol-
ogy, 16, 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791946
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and develop-
ment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 844–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Simpson, R. (2016). Singleness and self-identity: The significance of partnership status in the narratives
of never-married women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 385–400. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407515611884
Smith, K. R., & Waitzman, N. J. (1994). Double Jeopardy: Interaction effects of marital and poverty status on
the risk of mortality. Demography, 31, 487–507. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061754
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, 603–624. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407508093789
Stronge, S., Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Gender differences in the associations between rela-
tionship status, social support, and wellbeing. Journal of Family Psychology, 33, 819–829. https://doi.
org/10.1037/fam0000540

13
Relationship Status and Psychological Well-being: Initial Evidence for the… 2581

Tan, J. J. X., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C., & Adler, N. E. (2020a). The association between objective and
subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bul-
letin, 146, 970–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000258
Tan, J. J. X., Kraus, M. W., Impett, E. A., & Keltner, D. (2020b). Partner commitment in close relationships
mitigates social class differences in subjective well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Sci-
ence, 11(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619837006
Tan, K., Agnew, C. R., & Hadden, B. W. (2020c). Seeking and ensuring interdependence: Desiring com-
mitment and the strategic initiation and maintenance of close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 46, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219841633
Tan, K., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2018). Running on empty: Measuring psychological dependence
in close relationships lacking satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 977–998.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517702010
Tan, K., & Tay, L. (2022). Relationships and well-being. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba
textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/h2tu6sxn

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13