Sex Roles

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 73–78 | Cite as

Attitudes towards single women

  • Yvonne Stolk
  • Patricia Brotherton


Empirical studies of attitudes towards, and the sociopsychological characteristics of single women have been neglected by social scientists. As a minority group, subject to normative judgements of their sex-role behavior, single women are vulnerable to prejudicial evaluations by married people of both sexes. The present study investigated aspects of the social environment which have positive or negative consequences for single women. A survey was conducted of N=48 male and female married subjects in an Australian city. Major findings were that (a) married people have little or no contact with single women; (b) males tend to be more negative in their evaluations of single women than females; and (c) most females can allow for the possibility of a major sex role other than that involving marriage.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, M. The single woman in today's society: A reappraisal. In H. Wortis & C. Rabinowitz (Eds.), The women's movement: Social and psychological perspectives. New York: Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M. Single blessedness. London: Heinemann, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Preliminary characteristics. Census of population and housing, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Bergquist, L. How come a nice girl like you isn't married? In S. Safilios-Rothschild (Ed.), Toward a sociology of women. Lexington, Mass.: Xerox College Publishing, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, J. Coercive pronatalism and American population policy. International Institute of Internation Studies, University of California. (Undated)Google Scholar
  6. Erikson, E. H. Identity, youth and crisis. London: Faber, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. Firestone, S. The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. London: Granada Publishing, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Hacker, H. M. Women as a minority group. Social Forces, 1951, 30, 60–69.Google Scholar
  9. Keller, S. The future role of women. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1973, 408, 1–12.Google Scholar
  10. King, M., & Ziegler, M. Research projects in social psychology. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Mackie, M. Arriving at “truth” by definition: The case of stereotype inaccuracy. Social Problems, 1973, 20, 431–445.Google Scholar
  12. Mercer, J. (Ed.). The other half: Women in Australian society. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. Family, socialisation and interaction process. New York: Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  14. Stolk, Y., & Brotherton, P. L. The spinster stereotype: A demographic refutation? Melbourne Psychology Reports. Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. Summers, A. Damned whores and God's police: The colonisation of women in Australia. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Van Dusen, R. A., & Sheldon, E. B. The changing status of American women: A life cycle perspective. American Psychologist, 1976, 31, 106–116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Stolk
    • 1
  • Patricia Brotherton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneCanada

Personalised recommendations