Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 169–184 | Cite as

Satisfaction with Relationship Status: Development of a New Scale and the Role in Predicting Well-Being

  • Vicky LehmannEmail author
  • Marrit A. Tuinman
  • Johan Braeken
  • Ad. J. J. M. Vingerhoets
  • Robbert Sanderman
  • Mariët Hagedoorn
Research Paper


To develop a generic instrument assessing satisfaction with relationship status, and to examine the role of status satisfaction in explaining life satisfaction and distress beyond marital status. In two studies, we first examined the psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Relationship Status Scale (ReSta). Subsequently, regression analyses were used to test the predictive value of ReSta for life satisfaction and distress after controlling for sociodemographic variables and a perceived lack of social support. An economic five-item scale was constructed, cross-validated, and showed very high reliability. In both studies, higher ReSta-scores predicted higher satisfaction with life and lower distress, explaining considerable amounts of additional variance (18–29 %) after controlling for sociodemographic variables (i.e. gender, age, and education), marital status, and also after taking a perceived lack of social support into account. Hence, being satisfied with one’s current relationship status (either having a partner or not) seems to be more important in explaining broader well-being constructs (such as life satisfaction and distress), as compared to considering marital status alone. ReSta is the first analog scale enabling comparisons between partnered and single individuals and adds explanatory value beyond marital status and other factors in predicting life satisfaction and distress.


Satisfaction Marital status Romantic relationships Singlehood Social support Well-being Distress Psychometric properties Measurement invariance 


  1. Barrett, A. E. (1999). Social support and life satisfaction among the never married examining the effects of age. Research on Aging, 21(1), 46–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridges, K. R., Sanderman, R., & van Sonderen, E. (2002). An english language version of the social support list: Preliminary reliability. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 1055–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, A., & Carr, D. (2005). Caught in the cultural lag: The stigma of singlehood. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2–3), 84–90.Google Scholar
  4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2005). Target article: Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2–3), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics, CBS. Retrieved, May, 2012, from
  9. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazier, P., Arikian, N., Benson, S., Losoff, A., & Maurer, S. (1996). Desire for marriage and life satisfaction among unmarried heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg, D. (1992). General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Windsor: Nfer-Nelson.Google Scholar
  12. Gubernskaya, Z. (2010). Changing attitudes toward marriage and children in six countries. Sociological Perspectives, 53(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test–retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10(4), 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Coyne, J. C., Van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Ranchor, A. V., Van Sonderen, E., et al. (2006). Does marriage protect older people from distress? The role of equity and recency of bereavement. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koeter, M., & Ormel, J. (1991). General Health Questionnaire, Handleiding Nederlandse Bewerking [General Health Questionnaire, Manual Dutch Version]. Lisse (the Netherlands): Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  21. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks, N. F., & Lambert, J. D. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults longitudinal effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 19(6), 652–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and Psychological Well-being: Some Evidence on Selection into Marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 25, 901–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mastekaasa, A. (1994). Marital status, distress, and well-being: An international comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
  25. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.Google Scholar
  27. Shapiro, A., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off? Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 329–346. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9194-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married? Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 326–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Sonderen, E. (1993). Measuring social support with the social support list—interactions (SSL-I) and social support list—discrepancies (SSL-D). A Manual. Groningen, the Netherlands: Noordelijk Centrum Voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken, Google Scholar
  30. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wyke, S., & Ford, G. (1992). Competing explanations for associations between marital status and health. Social Science and Medicine, 34(5), 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimmermann, A. C., & Easterlin, R. A. (2006). Happily ever after? Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and happiness in Germany. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicky Lehmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marrit A. Tuinman
    • 1
  • Johan Braeken
    • 2
  • Ad. J. J. M. Vingerhoets
    • 3
  • Robbert Sanderman
    • 1
  • Mariët Hagedoorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Psychology SectionUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG)GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Research Methodology GroupWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Medical and Clinical PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations