Romantic and dating behaviors among single parents in the United States

Abstract

Little research has focused on the dating attitudes and behaviors of singles with dependent-age children. Using data collected from a nationally representative U.S. probability sample of single adults, we provide findings on dating attitudes and behaviors among 747 single parents in the United States, aged 21 years and older, who had one or more children under the age of 18 years. Findings show gender differences between single men and single women concerning how they balance being a single parent and make time for dating. Both single fathers and single mothers considered their child’s opinion about their dating life, and most parents involved their child(ren) once they knew they wanted or had established a committed romantic relationship with a new partner.

Full text

Personal Relationships,23 (2016), 491–504. Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright © 2016 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/pere.12139
Romantic and dating behaviors among single parents
in the United States
PETER B. GRAY,aCAROL Y. FRANCO,aJUSTIN R. GARCIA,bAMANDA N.
GESSELMAN,bAND HELEN E. FISHERb
aUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas and bIndiana University, Bloomington
Abstract
Little research has focused on the dating attitudes and behaviors of singles with dependent-age children. Using data
collected from a nationally representative U.S. probability sample of single adults, we provide ndings on dating
attitudes and behaviors among 747 single parents in the United States, aged 21 years and older, who had one or more
children under the age of 18 years. Findings show gender differences between single men and single women concerning
how they balance being a single parent and make time for dating. Both single fathers and single mothers considered
their child’s opinion about their dating life, and most parents involved their child(ren) once they knew they wanted or
had established a committed romantic relationship with a new partner.
Single parents in the United States constitute a
signicant segment of the population. Accord-
ing to the U.S. Census, there are now more than
20 million single-parent households (Kreider
& Ellis, 2009), and an estimated 27% of chil-
dren under the age of 18 live with only one
parent (Lofquist, 2012). Singles, while now
constituting approximately one third of the
U.S. adult population, face substantial stereo-
typing and stigmatization compared to cou-
pled individuals (DePaulo & Morris, 2006).
However, this negative labeling is likely to
be more intense when directed toward sin-
gles raising children without a partner. Unlike
singles without children, single parents must
balance trade-offs between time and energy
Peter B. Gray, Department of Anthropology, University
of Nevada, Las Vegas; Carol Y. Franco, Department of
Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Justin R.
Garcia, Department of Gender Studies and The Kinsey
Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction,
Indiana University, Bloomington; Amanda N. Gesselman,
The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and
Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington; Helen E.
Fisher, The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender,
and Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter B.
Gray, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department
of Anthropology, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003, e-mail:
peter.gray@unlv.edu.
devoted to parenting and that devoted to their
romantic life (Gray, Garcia, Crosier, & Fisher,
2015). Despite these potential social barriers,
relatively little is known about the roman-
tic dating attitudes and behaviors of single
parents.
Previous investigations on human roman-
tic and sexual relationships, particularly when
framed in terms of mating behaviors in the
realm of evolutionary psychology, have pri-
marily relied on ndings from convenience
samples of college students as participants.
Although such studies provide relevant infor-
mation in understanding dating behaviors, they
cannot be generalized to the wider U.S. pop-
ulation or specically to those within various
stages in their adult life history, such as par-
enthood. Consequently, there remains a dearth
of research on the romantic and sexual lives of
single parents. The current article draws on a
large demographically diverse sample of sin-
gle parents in the United States to further our
understanding of the attitudes and behaviors
of single mothers and single fathers, including
how single parents manage their time in order
to date as well as how and when they choose
to involve their child/children in their dating
lives.
491

492 P. B. Gray et al.
Single parents face a unique set of chal-
lenges with regard to dating and romance
as they must manage the responsibilities of
parenthood while also managing singlehood.
Single parents may yearn for a romantic con-
nection, but balancing a dating life and par-
enthood may be exhausting, especially when
there is a lack of support from family or a for-
mer partner (see Anderson & Greene, 2005).
In order to nd time to date or engage in a
romance, single parents are highly likely to
need to negotiate child-care arrangements, par-
ticularly if they have young dependent children
(Gray et al., 2015). Single parents also face
issues concerning when and how to involve
children in their dating lives (Miller, 2009).
Parents may be concerned about the emo-
tional well-being of their child/children and
may postpone child involvement until a level of
commitment with their dating partner has been
achieved. Single parents must also balance
concerns about introducing potential attach-
ment gures to their child(ren) before knowing
how long and in what capacity a partner will be
involved in their child’s life. Thus, it is neces-
sary for single parents to consider an array of
factors directly concerning their children while
also managing their own dating and romantic
interests. In light of these issues, it is impor-
tant to understand how a single parent attempts
to negotiate romantic and sexual relationships,
if at all.
A life history approach to single parents’
dating attitudes and behaviors
Evolutionary theory has been used to describe
countless phenomena including human behav-
ior and human reproductive strategies, which
have included a particular emphasis on human
romantic and sexual relationships (Buss &
Barnes, 1986; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Fisher,
2016; Gray & Garcia, 2013). Relatedly, life
history theory examines trade-offs occurring
during the (human) lifespan, including devel-
opment, reproduction, and senescence (Mace,
2000). Like all organisms, human biology
weighs the cost of growth and maintenance
versus the cost of reproduction; as such,
human behavior has evolved unique life stages
and behaviors to enhance reproductive tness
(Kaplan, Hill, Lancaster, & Hurtado, 2000;
Stearns, 1992). Thus, humans face challenges
of how to allocate their limited reproduc-
tive effort to competing agendas of mating
and parenting effort, with distinct conicting
motivations between men and women (Geary,
2010; Trivers, 1972). Here, we apply evo-
lutionary and life history theory to examine
romantic behaviors among single men and
single women living in the United States with
dependent-aged children.
To date, most research on parenthood
and sexuality is focused on partnered indi-
viduals, particularly on partnered women
(Escasa-Dorne, Young, & Gray, 2013; Hyde &
DeLamater, 2000). In one study on the sexual
behavior of single parents (Gray et al., 2015),
after controlling for parental age, gender,
sexual orientation, education, and income,
singles without children showed no difference
in recent sexual activity compared to singles
with children 18 years or younger; however, in
this same study, single parents with younger
children (aged 5 years or younger) reported
greater frequency of sexual activity and rst
dates compared to single parents with older
children. With respect to dating and romantic
lives, it is somewhat expected that singles
would attempt to repartner after separation
or divorce to increase their ability to provide
for their children and maximize their repro-
ductive potential. Moreover, for those single
parents who bore a child or children outside
of a romantic relationship or marriage, the
onset of parenting would be likely to stimulate
the desire to form a romantic partnership
for similar reasons. This is consistent with
research demonstrating the near universal
human desire to form long-term sociosexual
“romantic” relationships across the life course
(Fisher, 2016; Gray & Garcia, 2013; Hateld
& Rapson, 2005; Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992).
The presence of children poses a variety
of challenges to establishing a romantic rela-
tionship, with some trade-offs that are gender
specic. These gender-specic tradeoffs result
from the interaction of biological gender dif-
ferences and socially scripted gender roles
(Wood & Eagly, 2007, 2012). For example,
women—who, unlike men, are always cer-
tain their offspring are genetically theirs
(Clutton-Brock, 1991; Trivers, 1972)—tend

Dating and single parents 493
to invest more time and metabolic energy in
their offspring, particularly during infancy
and early childhood (Gray & Garcia, 2013;
Trivers, 1972). Thus, single mothers might
benet from a new romantic partner who could
provide emotional and nancial support for
them and their children (Cartwright, 2010;
Osborne, Berger, & Magnuson, 2012). Com-
pounding these factors, the gendered social
landscape (in contemporary United States)
poses particular pressures and constraints on
single mothers looking to date or establish
a committed relationship, different from the
pressures that single fathers and singles with-
out children likely face. Research suggests that
as the number of children a woman has from a
previous relationship increases, her chances of
remarrying or cohabitating with a new partner
decrease (Lampart & Peggs, 1999). In one
study of serial monogamy in the United States,
for example, researchers found that men tend
to have higher reproductive success from
a series of pair-bond relationships than do
women (Jokela, Rotkirch, Rickard, Pettay, &
Lummaa, 2010). Furthermore, expectations of
guardianship and caretaking tend to be greater
for mothers. For example, following parental
separation in the United States, mothers tend to
expend more custodial time with their young
than do fathers (Kelly, 2007).
Marriage, which is found in nearly all
human cultures, serves (at least in part) as a
socially sanctioned reproductive contract to
maximize one’s reproductive tness (Buckle,
Gallup, & Rodd, 1996; Fisher, 2016; Gray &
Garcia, 2013). Heterosexual marriage thereby
promotes paternal investment by seemingly
assuring a male of his offspring’s paternity.
Relatedly, it has been suggested that the human
pair-bond evolved to support females at least
long enough to raise a child through infancy,
thereby increasing the child’s chances of
survival through provisioning and investment
from both mother and father (Fisher, 1989;
Geary, 2000; Gray & Anderson, 2010; Quinlan
& Quinlan, 2007). Women, particularly those
in traditional or hunter-gatherer societies, gen-
erally breastfeed their children until about the
age of 4 (Hrdy, 1999). Taken together, these
data help to explain why many individuals
cross-culturally divorce within the early years
of their marriage, once young children are
weaned and somewhat less dependent on dual
parental care (Fisher, 2016).
Typically, divorced individuals tend to
remarry; this is true in industrialized nations
and in hunter-gatherer populations. In a remar-
riage study involving Canadian participants,
for example, researchers found that about 31%
of women and 40% of men repartnered within
3 years of the dissolution of their rst marriage
or cohabitation (Wu & Schimmele, 2005).
Additionally, they found that by 5 years after
divorcing, 42% of women and 54% of men
repartnered, and by 10 years after divorcing,
59% of women and 72% of men repartnered.
Because reproductive value, or the likelihood
of future reproductive output (Fisher, 1958),
decreases with advancing age, older singles
may give less consideration to future child-
rearing in their dating decisions. It has been
proposed that serial monogamy, the practice
of successive pair-bond relationships, is an
adaptive reproductive strategy to create more
genetic variety in one’s lineage by bearing
young with more than one partner (Fisher,
1989, 2011; Jokela et al., 2010). Despite this
knowledge, an information gap persists in
understanding how men and women with
children but without a romantic partner engage
with the dating market and the process of
repartnering, including how single parents
integrate the demands of parenting with those
of dating.
Given that most research on dating and
sexuality focuses on individuals without chil-
dren or on those who are already partnered,
we have two aims in this article. As this
is an exploratory study, the rst aim is to
present descriptive data on dating attitudes and
behaviors of single parents of dependent-age
children (less than 18 years of age), using a
nationally representative sample of singles in
the United States. Advantages of this study
include providing an unusually large sample
offering generalizable ndings on how single
parents negotiate romantic life and parent-
hood. The second aim is to investigate the
gender- and age-related patterning of romantic
dating behaviors and attitudes, as framed by
evolutionary theory and life-history theory.
Toward this latter aim, we test two general

494 P. B. Gray et al.
hypotheses, drawing on the background
reported above:
Hypothesis 1: Women will exhibit more dis-
cerning views of whether or how to involve
potential partners in their dating lives com-
pared to men.
Hypothesis 2: Younger singles with
dependent-aged children will be more
concerned with whether or how to involve
potential partners in their dating lives than
will older singles.
Method
Study design and data collection procedures
Data were collected in 2011 as part of an
annual study known as Singles in Amer-
ica (SIA). Participants were recruited by
MarketTools®(San Francisco, CA) using
independent Internet research panels for a
population-based cross-sectional survey.1
MarketTools®draws panelists from their
diverse pool of established participants; these
subjects have been continuously recruited over
several years from a wide variety of venues,
including paper and electronic mailings,
referrals, corporate partnerships, and Internet
recruitment. National representative research
panels are compiled based on demographic
distributions reected in the most recent Cur-
rent Population Survey, conducted by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census. All data were collected
over the Internet (see www.markettools.com).
To ensure data quality, research panelists
are required to verify their identity through
the TrueSample™ certication process, which
employs validation technologies in real time to
identify and screen out fake, duplicate, unen-
gaged, and unqualied respondents who may
attempt to take a survey (see www.truesample.
com). To prevent automated responses,
a respondent verication tool shows
1. Singles in America (SIA) is sponsored by the online
dating company, Match.com®; however, participants
were not recruited or in any way drawn from the
Match.com®population or subsidiary sites. Partici-
pants were drawn exclusively from the U.S. nation-
ally representative research panels established by
MarketTools®.
alphanumeric characters as an image that
the respondent then enters to verify legitimacy.
Each respondent is further validated by col-
lection of unique identication information,
thus preventing false or double responders.
Additionally, panelists are screened to ensure
survey engagement, with those straight-lining
responses or moving too quickly through
panels removed.
Additional target population lters were
introduced. Only those individuals completing
the survey on a desktop computer, laptop,
or notebook were included within the sam-
ple frame (those using mobile devices were
not invited to participate). Inclusion criteria
required being at least 21 years of age and
identifying oneself as single. All participants
identied as currently single (including those
currently separated, divorced, or widowed);
those individuals identifying as married, in a
domestic partnership, living with a partner,
engaged, or who did not answer this demo-
graphic question on relationship status were
not invited to participate.
Individuals on research panels within the
sample frame received a recruitment message
from MarketTools®that provided a brief
description of SIA and invited them to par-
ticipate in a questionnaire research study for
nancial remuneration. In the study conden-
tiality statement, participants were informed
that they would never be contacted for market-
ing purposes as a result of their participation
and that all identifying information would be
stored separately from their research response
data. Data access and analysis procedures
were approved by the Indiana University Insti-
tutional Review Board. All measures were
completed online.
Participants
Participant inclusion criteria for the entire
sample (N=5,541) required being single and
age 21 years or older. For this study, we exam-
ined only participants with children less than
18 years of age. The current study includes
747 participants (261 men, 486 women)
between 21 and 76+years of age (M=41.46,
SD =10.62). With regard to ethnicity, 73.1%
were White non-Hispanic, 17.8% Black/

Dating and single parents 495
African American, 6.7% Hispanic/Latino,
1.5% Asian/Pacic Islander, and 0.9%
North American Indian/Alaskan Native. Most
(95.2%) identied as heterosexual, 3.7% as
bisexual, and 1.1% as gay or lesbian.
Measures
Participants completed sociodemograph-
ics followed by items regarding romantic
life and single parenthood. Survey ques-
tions and response options are provided in
Table A1 in the Appendix.
General relationship and parenthood items
Participants completed a single-item measure
of happiness with their personal life over
the past year, rated as 1 =mostly unhappy to
4=very happy. They also rated their attitude
toward seeking a relationship at the time of
the survey by selecting one of the following
six options: (1) I am not actively looking,but
if I meet the right person I would consider it;
(2) I don’t really have time for a relationship
right now;(3)I don’t want a relationship, I
prefer to stay unattached;(4)I am actively
seeking a relationship;(5)I am currently dat-
ing someone; and (6) I would just like to date
lots of people. In the interest of parsimony,
we combined (1)–(3) and (4) – (6) to create
a dichotomous measure of attitudes toward
seeking (0 =not actively seeking, 1 =actively
seeking).
Participants rated their own willingness to
date a single parent who is living with children
(1 =not at all willing,4=very willing)aswell
as whether they had ever lied about having
children to get a date, whether they would let
their child set them up on a date, and whether
they take seriously their child’s opinion of a
dating partner (yes/no for all).
Involvement and negotiation items
Participants described the role their children
play in their dating life. They rated their
children’s involvement with the following
responses: (1) I involve them from the start;(2)
I involve them once I know I want a committed
relationship;(3)I do not involve them until I
actually get into a committed relationship; and
(4) I do not involve my children in my dating
life. We reverse-scored this item and treated it
as a continuous measure of child involvement
in the parent’s dating life.
Participants reported how they make time
to go on dates without their children, including
leaving them with a babysitter, with their
ex-partner, at a sleepover, or at a relative’s/
friend’s house (yes/no for all). They also
reported on the appropriateness of certain
activities— done with an exclusive partner—
around their children, including holding
hands with your partner, showing affection
by hugging and kissing your partner, let-
ting your partner spend the night, and going
away on weekends or vacations with your
partner. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all
appropriate)to4(very appropriate).
Postrelationship item
Participants reported whether they would allow
their children to maintain a relationship with an
ex-partner. Response options included: (1) Yes,
if my children had built a positive relationship;
(2) Yes, irrespective of my relationship with
my ex;(3)Only if my ex and I continue to
be friends;(4)Not under any circumstances.
We combined Options (1) and (2) to reect a
contingent relationship and Options (3) and (4)
to reect a continued relationship.
Results
Descriptive data
Across the sample, most participants were
somewhat happy (51.7%) or very happy
(21.6%) with their personal lives over the last
year (M=2.88, SD =0.83). Most (62.2%)
were not actively seeking a relationship at the
time of the survey but were somewhat (32.6%)
to very (56.6%) willing to date a single parent
living with children (M=3.41, SD =0.81).
The majority of participants reported that
they would involve their child in their dating
life at some point: 33.5% involve their chil-
dren once they know they want a committed
relationship with the potential partner, 31.3%
involve them once they are in a committed
relationship, and 14.7% involve them from
the start (M=2.42, SD =0.97). Similarly,
82.9% reported that they take seriously their
children’s opinion of the person they are

496 P. B. Gray et al.
dating. About one third (31.9%) would allow
their child to set them up on a date, and only
2.5% had lied about having children to get
a date.
When reporting on the appropriateness of
certain behaviors with an exclusive partner
in front of their children, 92.0% reported
that holding hands was somewhat to very
appropriate (M=3.47, SD =0.74), 79.1% felt
the same about showing affection by hugging
and kissing the partner (M=3.03, SD =0.85),
and 64.1% felt that going away on vacation
together was somewhat to very appropriate
(M=2.76, SD =0.96). Less than half (45.1%)
rated letting the partner spend the night as
somewhat to very appropriate (M=2.34,
SD =0.99).
Participants reported how they negotiate
time for dating: 33.2% dated when their chil-
dren were at a relative’s/friend’s house, 34.0%
when their children were visiting with their
ex-partner, 23.2% used a babysitter, and 18.7%
dated when their children were at a sleepover.
Finally, they reported on whether they would
allow their children to maintain a relationship
with their ex-partner. Half (48.6%) reported
that they would allow their children to con-
tinue having a relationship, while half (51.4%)
reported that the relationship would be contin-
gent on factors such as their own relationship
the ex-partner.
Effects of gender and age
Next, we assessed whether there are signi-
cant gender and age differences in the dating
behaviors of single parents. We conducted
16 regression models— binary logistic for
dichotomous outcomes (n=9; see Table 1 for
regression coefcients) and linear for contin-
uous outcome variables (n=7; see Table 2 for
regression coefcients). Age (mean-centered),
gender (coded as −0.5 =women, 0.5 =men),
and their interaction term served as the predic-
tor variables. Because of the large number of
tests conducted, we restricted signicance to
p<.01 to correct against Type I errors.
Gender and age effects on general
relationship and parenthood items
There were no signicant effects of gender or
age on happiness with personal life over the last
year or willingness to date a single parent who
lives with children (ps≥.03). There were two
age effects, such that younger participants were
more likely to be actively seeking a relation-
ship and to have lied about having children to
get a date. There were two gender effects: Men
were more likely than women to let their chil-
dren set them up on a date, and women were
more likely than men to take seriously their
children’s opinion of their dating partner.
Gender and age effects on involvement
and negotiation items
There were no signicant effects of gender or
age on the involvement of children in one’s
dating life (ps≥.06) or on negotiating time
to date while one’s children were away at
a sleepover or with a babysitter (ps≥.02).
However, men were more likely to make time
to date when their children were visiting with
their ex-partner. Younger participants were
more likely than older participants to take
time to date when their children were at a
relative’s/friend’s houses.
There were no effects of gender or age on
the perceived appropriateness of hand hold-
ing or hugging and kissing a partner in front
of one’s children (ps≥.05). However, younger
participants and men felt that spending the
night with a partner was an appropriate behav-
ior more so than did older participants and
women. Additionally, there was a main effect
of gender on the perceived appropriateness of
going away on weekends or a vacation with
your partner, with men nding this behavior
more appropriate than women. However, this
main effect was qualied by an interaction
between gender and age. Simple effects tests
found that for older participants, men felt that
going away was appropriate more so than did
women, b=0.58, t=4.69, p<.001, rp=.17.
There was no signicant gender difference for
younger participants (p=.06).
Gender and age effects on the
postrelationship item
There were no effects of gender or age on
whether participants would allow their children
to have a relationship with their ex-partner
following a breakup (ps≥.20).

Dating and single parents 497
Table 1. Logistic regression coefcients for age, gender, and Age ×Gender effects on dichotomous outcome variables
Age Gender Age ×Gender
Outcome variables bwOR [95% CI] bwOR [95% CI] bwOR [95% CI]
Attitude toward seeking a
relationship
−0.05 32.43*** 0.95 [0.94, 0.97] 0.30 2.58 1.35 [0.94, 1.94] 0.00 0.02 1.00 [0.97, 1.04]
Lied about having children to
get a date
−0.09 9.72** 0.91 [0.86, 0.97] 0.63 0.59 1.88 [0.38, 9.34] −0.07 1.45 0.93 [0.83, 1.05]
Would allow children to set
up a date
0.01 2.76 1.01 [1.00, 1.03] 0.51 8.60** 1.66 [1.18, 2.32] −0.01 0.12 1.00 [0.97, 1.03]
Take seriously child’s opinion
of partner
−0.02 3.04 0.98 [0.97, 1.00] −0.97 21.58*** 0.38 [0.25, 0.57] −0.02 0.62 0.99 [0.95, 1.02]
Date when child is with
babysitter
−0.02 5.85 0.98 [0.96, 1.00] −0.28 1.66 0.76 [0.50, 1.16] 0.02 0.85 1.02 [0.98, 1.06]
Date when child visits
ex-partner
−0.02 9.00** 0.98 [0.96, 0.99] 0.46 6.68†1.59 [1.12, 2.26] −0.01 0.31 0.99 [0.96, 1.02]
Date when child is at
sleepover
−0.02 2.85 0.98 [0.96, 1.00] −0.52 4.75 0.60 [0.37, 0.95] −0.03 1.79 0.97 [0.93, 1.01]
Date when child is at
relative/friend’s house
−0.05 32.44*** 0.95 [0.93, 0.97] −0.18 0.76 0.84 [0.56, 1.25] 0.04 4.14 1.04 [1.00, 1.08]
Allow child to maintain
relationship with ex
0.00 0.04 1.00 [0.99, 1.02] 0.08 0.25 1.09 [0.79, 1.50] 0.02 1.66 1.02 [0.99, 1.05]
†p=.01. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

498 P. B. Gray et al.
Table 2. Linear regression coefcients for age, gender, and Age ×Gender effects on continuous
outcome variables
Age Gender Age ×Gender
Outcome variables bt
743 rpbt
743 rpbt
743 rp
Happiness with
personal life in
past 12 months
0.00 0.77 .03 −0.11 −1.61 −.06 −0.01 −1.97 −.07
Willingness to date
single parent
living with
children
−0.01 −2.24 −.09 0.06 0.84 .03 0.01 0.91 .04
Involvement of child
in dating life
−0.01 −1.91 −.07 −0.13 −1.70 −.06 0.00 0.58 .02
Appropriateness of
hand holding in
front of child
0.00 1.31 .05 0.02 0.03 .00 −0.00 −0.57 −.02
Appropriateness of
hugging and
kissing in front of
child
0.00 1.02 .04 0.14 1.98 .07 −0.01 −1.12 −.04
Appropriateness of
going away on
vacation with
partner
−0.00 −1.14 −.04 0.37 4.76*** .17 0.02 2.89** .11
Appropriateness of
partner spending
the night
−0.01 −3.00** −.11 0.52 6.66*** .24 0.00 0.07 .02
**p<.01. ***p<.001.
Discussion
Over the past several decades, there has been
a dramatic increase in the number of single
parents in the United States. Parenting con-
sumes time, energy, and resources for both
mothers and fathers, and this is generally more
pronounced for single parents. For single par-
ents with dependent-aged children, parenting
effort often comes at a cost to (re)partnering,
meaning that mothers and fathers may invest
less time searching for a new partner, although
they may be interested in nding romance
(Gray et al., 2015). Several patterns are visible
within the current data set of single parents,
many of which can be interpreted from an
evolutionary life history perspective with
respect to energy trade-offs. This perspective
is consistent with the responses of single
parents that we report here: While 39.7% of
single parents are actively dating, a majority
of single parents are not, but many would be
open to establishing a romantic relationship if
they met the right person.
Single parents with children are disad-
vantaged in the arena of romantic dating
(Anderson, 2000). That is because, all else
being equal, individuals may prefer nding
a new partner without investing in someone
else’s child. In evolutionary-economic terms,
individuals enter the “mating market” with a
variety of traits that may affect their ability
to attract a romantic and/or sexual partner
(Fales et al., 2016; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, &
Linsenmeier, 2002; Pawlowski & Dunber,
1999). In such a market, single parents may
be disadvantaged, thus making it less likely
for them to obtain desirable partners (i.e.,
mates who do not have their energies diverted

Dating and single parents 499
to dependent-age children from a previous
partner). As a demonstration of this, in one
study of relationship “dealbreakers” (Jonason,
Garcia, Webster, Li, & Fisher, 2015), 13% of
single participants (14% of women, 12% of
men) specically did not want to date a single
parent. Thus, it is likely that single parents
would be particularly accepting of potential
partners who also have children. Single par-
ents may also be more interested in other
single parents with whom they have a shared
life experience. However, this poses different
challenges associated with creating a blended
family (Portrie & Hill, 2005). Nonetheless, this
pattern is reected in the current data, which
show that most single parents are very willing
or somewhat willing to date someone who is
living with children. Although it may seem
a disadvantage for men to stepfather a child
from a previous partnership, from a life-history
perspective, it is benecial for men to make
this compromise if they also have the oppor-
tunity to bond with a highly desirable partner,
and possibly bear their own children with this
new partner. Otherwise, stepfathers may have
fewer opportunities to nd a partner and mate
given their positioning in the mating market
(Anderson, 2000). Women, in contrast, would
be likely to receive investment in themselves
and their children from a stepfather. Moreover,
regardless of gender, if romantic attachments
are formed, these adaptive affective bonds
(Fisher, 2016; Gray & Garcia, 2013) likely
make otherwise disadvantageous aspects of a
partnership, such as presence of children from
previous relationship(s), suitable.
Interestingly, in the current ndings, few
participants lied about having children in
order to establish a date. Those who did
lie about being a single parent tended to be
younger participants. A possible explana-
tion for this is because those who are young
would be at a disadvantage in acquiring a date
compared to older participants where having a
dependent-age child may, on average, be more
expected; as people age, and their potential
partners age, the assumption that they have
had committed relationships that may have
resulted in children is increasingly likely.
From a life-history perspective, it would be
benecial for individuals to inform a potential
date that they have children as new partners
may assist with parenting responsibilities. In
fact, from a life-history perspective, an interest
in childless individuals, particularly childless
women, is perhaps surprising considering
that males of many other species prefer to
mate with females with proven fertility and
parenting skills (Gray & Garcia, 2013; Muller,
Emery Thompson, & Wrangham, 2006). Most
notable, however, by not informing a potential
partner that one has dependent-age children,
one risks undermining a new romantic rela-
tionship if the potential partner feels deceived
and thus departs.
Men and women reported differences in
how they found time to date and the dat-
ing activities they deemed appropriate, among
other patterns. These data lend partial support
to the hypothesis that single mothers will be
more discerning than single fathers in deciding
whether or how to involve their children in par-
ents’ dating lives. These differential responses
between genders may reect differences in cus-
todial time; women may more often have pri-
mary custody of their child(ren) and therefore
need to nd arrangements, other than their ex,
in order to make time for dating, and more
often may be involved in dating behaviors in
the presence of children. These differences are
also consistent with other bodies or work indi-
cating that women are more discerning gen-
erally in partner choice (e.g., Darwin, 1871;
Geary, 2010; Gray & Garcia, 2013) and face
a greater dilemma weighing the potential risks
(e.g., social stigma, unintended pregnancy, dat-
ing or domestic violence by a new partner) rel-
ative to benets of forming a new partnership.
Evolutionary behavioral scientists have
spent considerable time theorizing and empiri-
cally demonstrating the ways in which parents
and family conguration impact offspring’s
romantic and sexual outcomes (Belsky, 2012;
Cameron & Garcia, 2013; Ellis, Schlomer,
Tilley, & Butler, 2012; Sheppard, Garcia, &
Sear, 2014), but what is less understood are the
ways in which children impact parent’s future
romantic and sexual lives (Gray & Anderson,
2010; Hrdy, 1999). It is clear from the data
reported here that single parents seriously
consider their child’s opinion with regard to
their dating lives. Single parents also carefully

500 P. B. Gray et al.
consider the point at which they involve their
children as well as which dating and romantic
behaviors they regard as appropriate around
their young. U.S. single parents appear to be
concerned with the emotional well-being of
their child(ren) and the impact of introducing
new (and potentially short-term) attachment
gures. In addition, single parents may worry
about developing a negative reputation among
family and friends if they consistently intro-
duce new partners to their children (Lampart
& Peggs, 1999). When asked about the role
their children play in their dating life, most
parents indicated that they involved their chil-
dren once they knew they wanted a committed
relationship with someone or when they had
established a committed relationship with such
a person (Table 2). This suggests that single
parents seek a degree of commitment from
their dating partner as a prerequisite for child
involvement.
An additional concern that may arise as a
single parent is the risk of abuse or maltreat-
ment towards one’s child by one’s romantic
partner or even step-parent. These concerns
are especially true for children under the age of
2 (Daly & Wilson, 1994). Research has found
that stepchildren have higher risks of homicide
through the agency of a step-parental gure
than that of their biological parents. Natural
selection may have favored a parental psy-
chology contingent upon relatedness and/or
perceived relatedness; parents are predicted
to be more concerned about the well-being of
their biological children versus children who
are unrelated (Clutton-Brock, 1991; Geary,
2000; Gray & Brown, 2015). Research has
found that among abusive stepfathers, for
example, they were more likely to injure
unrelated children in the home in comparison
to their biological children (Daly & Wilson,
1985). Abuse and homicide toward young
children in blended families often occurs at
the hands of the step-paternal gure, likely
because children tend to reside primarily with
their biological mother. This is particularly
concerning considering the increasing number
of blended families in the United States and
elsewhere. Given these potential risks toward
children, it can be anticipated that parents may
be reluctant to involve their children in their
dating life, at least until they have a satisfying
understanding of a new partner’s social and
behavioral dispositions. When single parents
do introduce their children to dating partners, it
may be in the benet of their child’s well-being
to consider the child’s opinion of the romantic
partner. This was true in this study, particularly
among women. While both single men and
women felt that it was important to seriously
consider their child’s opinion of the person
they are dating, this was especially true for
women. However, the current study was unable
to assess unique features of parent–child rela-
tionships, such as quality of the parent–child
relationship and variation in parental effort
(e.g., Cabeza De Baca, Figueredo, & Ellis,
2012), which may inuence when and how sin-
gle parents engage their children in their dating
and romantic lives. Future research in this vein
would benet by parsing out single parents’,
and particularly single mothers’, dating atti-
tudes in relation to the ages of their biological
children and further contextual features charac-
terizing individual parent– child relationships.
The current ndings provided partial sup-
port for the hypothesis that younger single
parents more carefully consider whether or
how to involve their children in their dating
and romantic lives. Viewed from evolutionary
and life-history perspectives, humans exhibit
multiple measures of reproductive senescence,
including age-related decreases in sexual
function, fecundity, and sexual desire (Gray &
Garcia, 2012). The present data also showed
age-related differences in singles’ views of
dating, with older individuals less actively
dating on average. As singles grow older,
including single parents, their reproductive
value decreases. Older singles may be less con-
cerned with nding new partners with whom
to reproduce, and their youngest (dependent)
children are not likely to be as young as those
of younger parents, making it less necessary
to factor in their children, at least in the same
ways, in single parents’ dating lives.
Conclusion
Single parents in the United States with
dependent-age children provided informa-
tion regarding their dating attitudes and
behaviors, as part of an annual national study of

Dating and single parents 501
singles. This study provides data from a large
nationally representative sample of U.S. sin-
gles, making these ndings more generalizable
to contemporary U.S. and other Western pop-
ulations, especially in comparison to much of
the previous dating and mating research in the
eld of evolutionary psychology, which has
largely relied on college student samples. The
majority of single parents reported that they
were not actively seeking a romantic relation-
ship but would date if they found the right
person. Thus, the demands of parenting most
likely affect the amount of time a single parent
is willing to invest in looking for a new partner.
The data presented here also revealed a gender
difference in how parents obtain child care in
preparation for going on a date: Women often
depended on friends and family members,
while men often went on dates when their child
was at their ex’s home. Both men and women
were open to dating someone who is currently
living with children, thereby likely increasing
their pool of potential mates and potentially
meeting a partner with similar parenting con-
straints and demands. Most single parents take
their child’s opinion seriously when it involves
their dating life. Single parents’ views on the
appropriateness of displaying affection with
a new partner— such as letting dates spend
the night or going away with a partner— are
likely inuenced by the parent’s concern over
their child’s emotional development and their
reputation with their children, family, and
friends. These results provided partial support
of the hypotheses that single mothers and
single parents of younger ages would exhibit
more discerning views of whether or how to
incorporate children in their dating lives. Many
of these dating-related behaviors among single
parents in the United States can be understood
through an evolutionary and life-history per-
spective that considers the role of children and
parenting in people’s dynamic romantic lives
across the adult lifespan.
References
Anderson, E. R., & Greene, S. M. (2005). Transitions in
parental repartnering after divorce. Journal of Divorce
& Remarriage,43, 47 –62.
Anderson, K. (2000). The life histories of American step-
fathers in evolutionary perspective. Human Nature,11,
307– 333.
Belsky, J. (2012). The development of human reproductive
strategies: Progress and prospects. Current Directions
in Psychological Science,21, 310– 316.
Buckle, L., Gallup, G., & Rodd, Z. (1996). Marriage as a
reproductive contract: Patterns of marriage, divorce,
and remarriage. Ethology and Sociobiology,17,
363– 377.
Buss, D., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate
selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,50, 559–570.
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory:
An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psy-
chological Review,100, 204– 232.
Cabeza De Baca, T., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2012).
An evolutionary analysis of variation in parental effort:
Determinants and assessment. Parenting: Science and
Practice,12, 94– 104.
Cameron, N. M., & Garcia, J. R. (2013). Maternal effect
and offspring development. In M. L. Fisher, J. R.
Garcia, & R. S. Chang (Eds.), Evolution’s empress:
Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women (pp.
133– 150). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, C. (2010). Preparing to repartner and live in
a stepfamily: An exploratory investigation. Journal of
Family Studies,16, 237– 250.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental
care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other
risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and
Sociobiology,6, 197– 210.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1994). Some differential
attributes of lethal assults on small children by
stepfathers versus genetic fathers. Ethology and
Sociobiology,15, 207– 217.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in
relation to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
DePaulo, B., & Morris, W. (2006). The unrecognized
stereotyping and discrimination against singles. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science,15, 251 –254.
Ellis, B. J., Schlomer, G. L., Tilley, E. H., & Butler, E.
A. (2012). Impact on fathers on risky sexual behavior
in daughters: A genetically and environmentally con-
trolled sibling study. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy,24, 317–332.
Escasa-Dorne, M., Young, S., & Gray, P. B. (2013). Now
or later: Peripartum shifts in female sociosexuality. In
M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, & R. S. Chang (Eds.), Evolu-
tion’s empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature
of women (pp. 260– 278). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Fales, M. R., Frederick, D. A., Garcia, J. R., Gildersleeve,
K. A., Haselton, M. G., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Mating
markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for
attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. stud-
ies. Personality and Individual Differences,88, 78– 87.
Fisher, H. E. (1989). Evolution of human serial pairbond-
ing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,78,
331– 354.
Fisher, H. E. (2011). Serial monogamy and clandestine
adultery: Evolution and consequences of the dual

502 P. B. Gray et al.
human reproductive strategy. In S. C. Roberts (Ed.),
Applied evolutionary psychology (pp. 93– 113). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, H. E. (2016). Anatomy of love: The natural history
of monogamy, adultery, and divorce (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Norton.
Fisher, R. A. (1958). The genetical theory of natural selec-
tion. New York, NY: Dover.
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression
of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 55–77.
Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human
sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Gray, P. B., & Anderson, K. G. (2010). Fatherhood: Evo-
lution and human paternal behavior. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gray, P. B., & Brown, E. (2015). Fatherhood in St Kitts:
Patterns and predictors of partnering and paternal
dynamics in a small Caribbean island. Fathering,13,
18– 35.
Gray, P. B., & Garcia, J. R. (2012). Aging and human sex-
ual behavior: Biocultural perspectives— A minireview.
Gerontology,58, 446– 452.
Gray, P. B., & Garcia, J. R. (2013). Evolution and human
sexual behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gray, P. B., Garcia, J. R., Crosier, B. S., & Fisher, H.
E. (2015). Dating and sexual behavior among single
parents of young children in the United States. Journal
of Sex Research,52, 121–128.
Hateld, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex:
Cross-cultural perspectives. Lantham, MD: University
Press of America.
Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and
how they shape the human species. New York, NY:
Ballantine.
Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. (2000). Sexuality during
pregnancy and the year postpartum. In C. B. Travis & J.
W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp.
167– 180). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural
perspective on romantic love. Ethnology,31, 149– 155.
Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., &
Lummaa, V. (2010). Serial monogamy increases repro-
ductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral
Ecology,21, 906– 912.
Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., &
Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits
people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,41, 1697– 1711.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. (2000).
A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, intel-
ligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology,9,
156– 185.
Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements follow-
ing separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and
clinical research. Family Process,46, 35 –52.
Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. E. (2009). Number, timing, and
duration of marriages and divorces: 2009. Current Pop-
ulation Reports. Washington,DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lampart, R., & Peggs, K. (1999). Repartnering: The rel-
evance of parenthood and gender to cohabitation and
remarriage among the formerly married. British Jour-
nal of Sociology,50, 443– 465.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A.
W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate prefer-
ences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,82, 947– 955.
Lofquist, D. (2012). Households and families: 2010.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau.
Mace, R. (2000). Evolutionary ecology of human life
history. Animal Behavior,59, 1–10.
Miller, A. E. (2009). Revealing and concealing postmarital
dating information: Divorced coparents’ privacy rule
development and boundary coordination processes.
Journal of Family Communication,9, 135 –149.
Muller, M. N., Emery Thompson, M. E., & Wrangham, R.
W. (2006). Male chimpanzees prefer mating with old
females. Current Biology,16, 2234– 2238.
Osborne, C., Berger, L. M., & Magnuson, K. (2012).
Family structure transitions and changes in maternal
resources and well-being. Demography,49, 23– 47.
Pawlowski, B., & Dunber, R. I. (1999). Impact of market
value on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London Series B,266, 281 –285.
Portrie, T., & Hill, N. R. (2005). Blended families: A
critical review of the current research. The Family
Journal,13, 445– 451.
Quinlan, R., & Quinlan, M. (2007). Evolutionary ecology
of human pair-bonds: Cross-cultural tests of alternative
hypotheses. Cross-Cultural Research,41, 149–169.
Sheppard, P., Garcia, J. R., & Sear, R. (2014). A
not-so-grim tale: How childhood family structure
inuences reproductive and risk-taking outcomes in a
historical U.S. population. PLoS One,9, e89539.
Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selec-
tion. In B. G. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the
descent of man (pp. 136– 179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). An evolutionary bioso-
cial theory of human mating. In S. Gangestad & J. A.
Simpson (Eds.), The evolution of mind: Fundamental
questions and controversies (pp. 383– 390). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction
of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P.
Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimen-
tal social psychology (pp. 55– 124). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. (2005). Repartnering after rst
union disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family,67,
27– 36.

Dating and single parents 503
Appendix
Table A1. Questionnaire items and variable codes
Item Variable (variable code)
1 Overall, how happy are you with your personal life the past 12 months?
Mostly unhappy (1)
Not very happy (2)
Somewhat happy (3)
Very happy (4)
2 Attitude towards seeking a relationship.
I am actively seeking a relationship (Active 1)
I am not actively looking, BUT if I meet the right person I would (Not Active 2)
I don’t really have time for a relationship right now (Not Active 2)
I don’t want a relationship (Not Active 2)
I am currently dating someone (Active 1)
I would just like to date lots of people (Active 1)
3 How willing are you to date a single parent who is living with children?
Not at all willing (1)
Not very willing (2)
Somewhat willing (3)
Very willing (4)
How do you make time for dating?
4 Babysitting
No (0)
Yes ( 1 )
5 When my children are visiting with my ex
No (0)
Yes ( 1 )
6 When my children are at a sleepover
No (0)
Yes ( 1 )
7 Drop off my child(ren) at relative or friend’s
No (0)
Yes ( 1 )
8 Have you ever lied about having children to get a date?
Yes ( 1 )
No (2)
9 Do you take your child’s opinion of the person you are dating seriously?
Yes ( 1 )
No (2)
10 Which of the following best describes the role your children play in your dating?
I involve them from the start (1)
I involve them once I know I want a committed relationship (2)
I do not involve them until I actually get into a committed relationship (3)

504 P. B. Gray et al.
Table A1. Continued
Item Variable (variable code)
I do not involve my children in my dating life (4)
11 Would you ever let your child set you up on a date?
Yes ( 1 )
No (2)
12 You and your date break up. Would you allow your children to keep a relationship?
Only if my ex and I continue to be friends (Contingent 2)
Yes, if my children had built a positive relationship (Continue 1)
Yes, irrespective of my relationship with my ex (Continue 1)
Not under any circumstances (Discontinue 3)
When you begin to date exclusively, how appropriate do you consider the following activities
around your kids?
13 Showing affection by hugging and kissing your partner
Not at all appropriate (1)
Not very appropriate (2)
Somewhat appropriate (3)
Very appropriate (4)
14 Letting the partner spend the night
Not at all appropriate (1)
Not very appropriate (2)
Somewhat appropriate (3)
Very appropriate (4)
15 Going away on weekends or a vacation with your partner
Not at all appropriate (1)
Not very appropriate (2)
Somewhat appropriate (3)
Very appropriate (4)
16 Holding hands with your partner
Not at all appropriate (1)
Not very appropriate (2)
Somewhat appropriate (3)
Very appropriate (4)