Are single people happier
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2026 5:05 pm
Hello, Guest!
Article about are single people happier:
| Psychology Today
People who marry, on average, do not become lastingly happier than they were when they were single. Are Married People Happier Than Single People? An inclusive perspective on singlehood needs to include the single at heart.
>>> GO TO SITE <<<
Claims that married people are happier than single people are ubiquitous, appearing in the popular media as well as scholarly publications. I want to explain why those claims are misleading and very often misunderstood. What if a drug company made the same claims? Suppose a drug company tested a new drug that was supposed to improve people’s happiness. The drug company lets people decide for themselves whether they want to take the drug. Of those who do, 42% hate the drug so much that they refuse to keep taking it. Other people who started taking the drug stop taking it because they can’t access it anymore (maybe their pharmacy ran out). The people in the study then rate how happy they are, on a scale ranging from 1 to 4, with 4 being the happiest. This is what the researchers find: 3.3 from those currently taking the drug 3.2 from those who never took the drug 2.9 from those who took the drug but found it intolerable (42%) 2.9 from those who took the drug, but lost access to it. The drug company decides to set aside the people who are no longer on the drug. That seems fair to them. After all, they want to show that people taking the drug are doing better than people not taking the drug. So they submit their findings to prestigious medical journals, claiming that people who are taking their drug are happier than people who are not taking their drug. In the article they submit, they report the results for the two groups they consider relevant: 3.3 from those currently taking the drug 3.2 from those who never took the drug. The main point of their article is that their new drug works. People taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug. The drug company also wants to advertise on TV, in magazines, online, and everywhere else. The point of their ads would be: Want to be happier? Take our new drug! No medical journal would publish that claim and the advertisements would be considered misleading. What’s wrong with the claim that people taking the drug are doing better than people not taking the drug, and therefore the drug works? Why can’t the drug company say that if you want to be happier, take the drug? The people in the drug trial were not randomly assigned to take the drug or not take it, they decided for themselves. That means that the two groups of people might differ in all sorts of ways, and it could be those ways, rather than taking the drug, that accounts for the drug group’s greater happiness. For example, maybe the people who opted to take the drug were more likely to be employed or to be advantaged in other ways and that’s why they were happier – not because they were taking the drug. The researchers only measured happiness at one point in time. Maybe the people who opted to take the drug were already happier even before they took the drug. Again, that could mean that taking the drug had nothing to do with their happiness. It is misleading to set aside the 42% of the people who took the drug, found it intolerable, and refused to keep taking it. That’s a lot of people – almost half! Aren’t their experiences relevant to the claim that the drug works? Aren’t the experiences of the people who started taking the drug and then, through no fault of their own, could not continue taking it, also relevant? Can you really say that the drug works when the people in those two groups actually do worse than the people who never took the drug? Suppose you saw an advertisement saying that the people taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug, and decided to take the drug yourself. Maybe the drug doesn’t make you any happier. How would you feel if you found out later that there were big groups of people who had also taken the drug and were less happy than the people who never did take the drug? How would you feel then about the drug company’s claim that people taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug? Someone deciding whether to take the drug has no way of knowing whether they will find it intolerable or end up losing access to the drug. They deserve to know that those two possibilities exist, and that they could end up less happy than if they opted not to take the drug at all. How Is This Relevant to the Happiness of Married and Single People?
are single people happier
are single women the happiest
unmarried women are happier
Article about are single people happier:
| Psychology Today
People who marry, on average, do not become lastingly happier than they were when they were single. Are Married People Happier Than Single People? An inclusive perspective on singlehood needs to include the single at heart.
>>> GO TO SITE <<<
Claims that married people are happier than single people are ubiquitous, appearing in the popular media as well as scholarly publications. I want to explain why those claims are misleading and very often misunderstood. What if a drug company made the same claims? Suppose a drug company tested a new drug that was supposed to improve people’s happiness. The drug company lets people decide for themselves whether they want to take the drug. Of those who do, 42% hate the drug so much that they refuse to keep taking it. Other people who started taking the drug stop taking it because they can’t access it anymore (maybe their pharmacy ran out). The people in the study then rate how happy they are, on a scale ranging from 1 to 4, with 4 being the happiest. This is what the researchers find: 3.3 from those currently taking the drug 3.2 from those who never took the drug 2.9 from those who took the drug but found it intolerable (42%) 2.9 from those who took the drug, but lost access to it. The drug company decides to set aside the people who are no longer on the drug. That seems fair to them. After all, they want to show that people taking the drug are doing better than people not taking the drug. So they submit their findings to prestigious medical journals, claiming that people who are taking their drug are happier than people who are not taking their drug. In the article they submit, they report the results for the two groups they consider relevant: 3.3 from those currently taking the drug 3.2 from those who never took the drug. The main point of their article is that their new drug works. People taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug. The drug company also wants to advertise on TV, in magazines, online, and everywhere else. The point of their ads would be: Want to be happier? Take our new drug! No medical journal would publish that claim and the advertisements would be considered misleading. What’s wrong with the claim that people taking the drug are doing better than people not taking the drug, and therefore the drug works? Why can’t the drug company say that if you want to be happier, take the drug? The people in the drug trial were not randomly assigned to take the drug or not take it, they decided for themselves. That means that the two groups of people might differ in all sorts of ways, and it could be those ways, rather than taking the drug, that accounts for the drug group’s greater happiness. For example, maybe the people who opted to take the drug were more likely to be employed or to be advantaged in other ways and that’s why they were happier – not because they were taking the drug. The researchers only measured happiness at one point in time. Maybe the people who opted to take the drug were already happier even before they took the drug. Again, that could mean that taking the drug had nothing to do with their happiness. It is misleading to set aside the 42% of the people who took the drug, found it intolerable, and refused to keep taking it. That’s a lot of people – almost half! Aren’t their experiences relevant to the claim that the drug works? Aren’t the experiences of the people who started taking the drug and then, through no fault of their own, could not continue taking it, also relevant? Can you really say that the drug works when the people in those two groups actually do worse than the people who never took the drug? Suppose you saw an advertisement saying that the people taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug, and decided to take the drug yourself. Maybe the drug doesn’t make you any happier. How would you feel if you found out later that there were big groups of people who had also taken the drug and were less happy than the people who never did take the drug? How would you feel then about the drug company’s claim that people taking the drug are happier than people not taking the drug? Someone deciding whether to take the drug has no way of knowing whether they will find it intolerable or end up losing access to the drug. They deserve to know that those two possibilities exist, and that they could end up less happy than if they opted not to take the drug at all. How Is This Relevant to the Happiness of Married and Single People?
are single people happier
are single women the happiest
unmarried women are happier