Singlehood as an identity

ABSTRACT

Very little attention has been paid in the literature to singlehood as an identity. Existing research can be divided into the reasons for singlehood on one side and the implications of being single on the other side, while mostly leaving singlehood itself a “black box.” Therefore, this article first surveys the two existing scholastic streams. Second, it lays out a growing stream of research where singlehood is found to be a social category and identity in itself. Third, through using social identity theories, this article offers a model of three main categories of singlehood identity: counter-normative, peripheral, and core identity. Fourth, the article demonstrates the far-reaching implications of this identity categorisation for empirical research and topics such as social discrimination, civil rights, and social movements. Thus, the meaning of singlehood is now going through a shift resembling past conceptual revolutions regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation.

KEYWORDS:

• Identity
• discrimination
• marriage
• relationships
• singlehood

Introduction

Over the last several decades, many countries worldwide have experienced a rise in singlehood, both in numbers and percentage of the population (Census, 2021a, Kislev, 2019, Klinenberg, 2012). In the United States, 38% of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 were not in a partnership in 2019, meaning they were neither married nor cohabitating with a partner, a significant increase from 29% in 1990 (Fry & Parker, 2021). According to the Eurostat 2019 data, 35% of European households are single-person, and this trend has been on the rise for over two decades (EuroStat, 2021). In Germany, for example, the number of one-person households has increased by 23% over the past two decades and become the most common household in today’s Germany, compared with a nine percent increase in two-person households and a decrease of more than 10% in three-person households and above (Úmweltbùndesamt, 2022). While there is no question that a growing percentage of the population in Western countries comprises singles, singlehood is also on the rise in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and parts of Africa (Census of India, 2011, Dommaraju, 2015, Guilmoto & de Loenzien, 2015, Park & Choi, 2015, Podhisita & Xenos, 2015).

While most people understand singlehood intuitively, it is hard to define the term clearly (Bergström & Brée, 2023, Mortelmans et al., 2023, Ochnik, 2012). One reason for this is the emergence of new types and patterns of romantic relationships continue to emerge. Moreover, multiple lifestyle options and living arrangements make it harder to define singlehood (Lehmann et al., 2015, Pepping et al., 2018). For instance, living with someone does not always imply a romantic relationship, and living alone does not necessarily indicate that someone does not have a partner (Girme et al., 2022, Kislev, 2020a).

In particular, a growing number of individuals choose to avoid intimate relationships and remain single for a long term. While single people still face negative stereotypes, there is clear evidence that many singles choose to remain that way even when they have a clear choice to start an intimate relationship (Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015, Kislev, 2019, Moore & Radtke, 2015). According to the Pairfam dataset¹ (Brüderl et al., 2021), collected between the years 2008–2021, 23% of singles aged 18 and above surveyed scored 1 or 2 out of 5 in response to the statement, “I would like to have a partner.” Eight percent scored 1, meaning “not at all,” and 15% scored 2. The numbers among those aged 30 and above are similar, with nine percent scoring 1 and 13% scoring 2. Another study (Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2023) showed that 17% of American singles aged 18–29 and 29% of those aged 30–35 chose the option “No, I don’t want to [be in a romantic relationship].” A report by the Pew Research Center (Brown, 2020) shows that half of American singles are not seeking a committed relationship or dates, while 26% are looking for committed relationships or casual dates, 14% for committed relationships only, and 10% for casual dates only. The difference between the studies appears to relate to age, with nearly 60% of the Pew survey respondents over 40 expressing disinterest in any dating form.

Despite these changing trends in preference for singlehood, psychologists, researchers, and policymakers are still not equipped to define the various groups of singles. Until now, singlehood has been treated, studied, and theorised as a relationship or marital status, which mostly signifies what is missing: relationship and/or marriage. In turn, the focus of the literature thus far has been on the psychological and social reasons for singlehood or the implications of such status (Girme et al., 2022), as outlined below.

However, the argument advanced here is that singlehood has become a social act and identity in and of itself, similar to other social identities (Cerulo, 1997, Frable, 1997, Tajfel, 1974). Being single carries cognitive schemes with various personal goals and social roles. Such a conceptual revolution resembles those made earlier regarding gender and sexual orientation, for example. A classic example is that of De Beauvoir (1949), who showed that woman was seen as “the other” in relation to man, who was considered the “default” or norm. This means that women were defined and judged in relation to men rather than independently. De Beauvoir contended that this construction of women as the other is a key aspect of how gender inequality was, and still is, maintained and reproduced.

A somewhat similar argument, with its nuances and variations, is made here regarding singlehood. Following contemporary definitions of social identity, it should be conceived of as a form of social representation that constitutes an organising principle of symbolic relationships between the individual and the social world (Ellemers et al., 2002, Jenkins, 2014). Such an identity is developed over time and through internal and external processes (Chryssochoou, 2003, Reicher et al., 1995), and is embedded and contextualised within the social world of individuals, shaping their interactions with family, friends, and civic engagements (Crocetti et al., 2022).

The categorisation proposed here, designed to define and characterise the identity of singles, has the potential to impact psychological practise and research significantly. By providing a systematic framework for assessing and categorising individuals based on their singlehood identity, this model offers a means of understanding the diverse experiences of single individuals. With its simplicity and applicability in clinical settings, this categorisation enables practitioners to define and conceptualise the unique aspects of each individual’s singlehood identity, thereby guiding interventions that address their specific needs and contribute to their overall well-being. Similarly, using the identity framework would enable researchers to investigate related measures such as social lives, sex habits, leisure activities, life satisfaction, and work-life balance systematically. Moreover, once the social category of singles is filled with an independent meaning and standing, it evolves to have its own social and political characteristics as well as moral standards. Considering singlehood as an identity entails participation in deliberative identity discourse, intentional communities, dedicated housing arrangements, policy goals, civil rights, consumerist lifestyles, among others.

Empirical evidence is emerging that underscores the implications of such a new conceptualisation. For example, it was demonstrated in previous studies that those with low relationship desire show fundamentally different results in a host of measures, including sociability, sex frequency, work-life balance, and life satisfaction, compared with high-level relationship seekers, and that this might be the reason for mixed findings in the past (Kislev, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b, Park et al., 2021, Slonim et al., 2015). For example, while some studies showed higher levels of loneliness, social isolation, and social anxiety among singles (Adamczyk, 2016, La Greca & Harrison, 2005, Porter & Chambless, 2014), others showed the opposite is true, in general (Kislev, 2020c), or in certain cases (Kislev, 2020b, Park et al., 2023).

Indeed, measuring relationship desire only scratches the surface of the identity and lifestyle variety investigated here. Yet, it evidently testifies that we miss something foundational in overlooking singles’ diverse self-views and making conclusions about this population as a whole. We cannot continue overlooking these distinctions in studying around half of the adult population in industrialised countries, exactly as we cannot lump together people of various ethnicities or sexualities. Similarly, policymakers cannot promote social policies without understanding the population of singles and its variations.

Building upon this nuanced perspective, the following sections delve deeper, presenting a review segmented into two main streams: social and psychological reasons for being single and the implications of singlehood. In this sense, singlehood is defined here as being unpartnered and living alone (Mortelmans et al., 2023), but once it is viewed as an identity, it could also become an identification that partnered people can hold in some cases (e.g., they might even see themselves as “closeted singles”). Thereafter, based on identity literature, the article conceptualises singlehood as an identity that is categorised into a counter-normative (or deviant) identity, a peripheral identity, and a core identity. The argument advanced here is that we need to decipher singles’ diverse stances and self-views. The article ends by discussing the implications of this new conceptualisation with concrete examples.

Reasons for singlehood

One major scholastic stream has explored various social forces and psychological factors that contribute to the rise of singlehood. One significant line of inquiry focuses on the deinstitutionalisation of marriage and the challenges faced by traditional family structures. These studies examine the decline in societal expectations surrounding marriage and the growing emphasis on personal fulfilment and individual choice (Cherlin, 2004). Factors such as post-materialist values, gender equality, educational and career opportunities for women, economic considerations, capitalist and consumerist trends, religious changes, migration patterns, and the influence of technology have all been identified as contributing to the shifting landscape of singlehood (Girme et al., 2022, Illouz, 2007, Inglehart, 1981, Kislev, 2018, 2019, 2022d, Maslow et al., 1970).

Furthermore, psychological perspectives shed light on the motivations and experiences of individuals who choose to remain single. These reasons can range from high expectations and desire for independence to disappointment in love, loss of parents, poor health, and attachment styles rooted in fear of intimacy or abandonment (Adamczyk, 2017, MacDonald & Park, 2022, Pepping & MacDonald, 2019, Pepping et al., 2018, Schachner et al., 2008). Additionally, the perceived risks associated with committed partnerships and marriage, influenced by rising divorce rates, can impact individuals’ decisions regarding relationship choices (Amato, 1996, Amato & Keith, 1991, Bumpass et al., 1991, Emery, 1999).

It is worth noting that some criticisms have been raised against previous studies on reasons for singlehood, suggesting sample biases and an underlying bias towards promoting committed partnerships and marriage as the societal norm (DePaulo, 2007, DePaulo, 2014, DePaulo, 2023, Morris et al., 2008). Instead, emerging research challenges this perspective, highlighting the importance of considering societal changes and individualistic choices in understanding the rise of singlehood (Girme et al., 2022, Kislev, 2022d).

The consequences of singlehood

While a major stream of studies focused on the reasons for singlehood, as shown above, another stream of studies focused on the consequences of being single. To a large extent, this stream of research is not focused on singlehood, but rather on marriage, the nuclear family, and the traditional household (Council et al., 2023, DePaulo, 2023, Ochnik & Slonim, 2020). In this line of research, marriage, as a crude contrast to singlehood, has been found to be associated with many benefits, including improved happiness and well-being (Gove et al., 1983, Johnson & Wu, 2002), reduced levels of depression (Wade & Pevalin, 2004), reduced levels of substance abuse (Power et al., 1999), improved health (Dupre & Meadows, 2007, Hughes & Waite, 2009), and increased longevity (Sbarra & Nietert, 2009). Married individuals have also been shown to be economically better off (Pearlin & Johnson, 1977). In fact, following a review of studies related to marital status and physical and mental health, Carr and Springer (2010) concluded that the question is not whether marriage can be associated with improved quality of life, but how it does so and at what stage.

Their analysis, however, did not aim to address the issue of whether self-selection could be a factor affecting the relationship between marriage and quality of life. Evidence supporting a selection effect in marriage has been found with a variety of models including transition rate methods (Cox regression) and extensive structured equations (Mastekaasa, 1992, Nakosteen & Zimmer, 1987, Waldron et al., 1996). A longitudinal twin study also found that there is a selection mechanism leading to marriage (Burt et al., 2010). Overall, studies have shown the selection mechanism to be responsible for around half of the apparent benefits of marriage (Kislev, 2019, 2020c).

Moreover, selection mechanisms are not the sole factor that undermines the seeming causation effect. Because singlehood was not seen as a legitimate choice or identity, discrimination against singles, which is critical in understanding the causes of the aforementioned disadvantages, was left unnoticed and uncounted (DePaulo, 2014, DePaulo & Morris, 2006, Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020, Kislev, 2019). In this way, the literature on the consequences of singlehood is largely based on a biased view ascribing to the values of the ideal family, which was viewed in a positive light against singlehood that continued to be stigmatised as a counter-normative status, as will be shown below. Bringing to light how singles are stigmatised is important as it may serve as a starting point for moving the conceptualisation of singlehood as a matter of individual effect towards a conceptualisation of singlehood as having group consequences at a large scale. This can be done by accepting singlehood as an identity.

Types of singlehood and the need to go beyond current conceptualisations

Singlehood has been studied in the past, and some typologies have been offered. Perhaps the most prominent typology is that of Stein (1978), who suggested a distinction between voluntary and involuntary singlehood following his earlier study of 20 individuals (Stein, 1975). In this study, some participants emphasised the term “choice” to describe how they reached their singleness status. In later writings, Stein (1978, 1978) added the axis of stability versus instability to the voluntary and involuntary dimension of singlehood, a distinction that was adopted in the literature to a lesser extent (Tessler, 2023). Thus, he contended that singlehood generally falls within four basic categories: voluntary temporary, voluntary stable, involuntary temporary, and involuntary stable.

More recently, researchers reverted back to the term “choice,” and several of them have started to use the term “singles by choice” as contrasting “singles by circumstances” (Council et al., 2023, Slonim et al., 2015, Slonim & Schütz, 2015). People who are single by choice are individuals who have made the decision to remain this way, either indefinitely or for a certain period of time. In contrast, people who are single by circumstances are individuals who are currently not in a romantic relationship, but have not actively chosen to be single. They look for a relationship and report on various circumstances that led them to be single in spite of their desire to partner up. Some of these circumstances could be the need to care for sick parents at some point in one’s life, or negative experiences with past relationships (Frazier et al., 1996, Jadva et al., 2009).

Yet, the conceptualisation of these categories left some researchers doubtful about the distinctions between voluntary and involuntary singlehood. In fact, later studies have shown that voluntary and involuntary singlehood is in constant negotiation. Bernard-Allan (2016), for example, described women’s negotiation of singlehood as dialectical. She argued that women come to accept singlehood through a process of “improvisations.”

Moreover, while the terminology of choice and circumstances adopts the terms used by some singles to explain their current relationship or marital status, it does not penetrate their entire view of themselves. It is more about their decision-making process and how they constructed their narrative rather than describing their self and current way of life. In other words, the definitions of voluntary or involuntary singlehood as well as the definitions of singlehood by choice versus singlehood by circumstances mostly refer to the ways in which the stance of singlehood was achieved, but it is not the actual and current positionality of singles. Similarly, the categories of stability versus temporality offered by Stein (1978, 1978) mainly refer to if and how these decision-making narratives are maintained.

Yet, these categories do not say much about the identification of singles in and of themselves. Looking at these categories in comparison to the study of ethnic and LGBTQ+ identities, for example, makes it clear how they undermine the stance of singles and the broader scope of their world (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 2019). Although important in their own right, the two axes (voluntary/involuntary and stability/temporality) leave us only with the answers to how singles “got here” and how long they will “stay like this.” Crucially, they play into the discourse of reasons and consequences described above but do not decipher the stance of singles.

Indeed, some recent studies initiated a deeper investigation into the lives of singles using a latent profile analysis (LPA). Park et al. (2023), for example, aimed to identify distinct profiles among singles based on their motives. Three groups of singles were identified: singles with strong independence tendencies, socially-focused singles, and what the authors termed “low safety” singles who are not concerned about exclusion while seeking affiliation. Notably, the independence-oriented group of singles consistently reported greater satisfaction with singlehood than other groups. Walsh et al. (2022) identified ten distinct profiles of singles based on variables such as friendship satisfaction, self-esteem, neuroticism, extraversion, and life satisfaction. The findings highlight the heterogeneity among singles and provide insights into the complex dynamics influencing their well-being.

Conceptualising singlehood as an identity

While the above-summarised works are important, identity theory emphasises how people view themselves and how this view affects their lifestyle, social roles, and values (Brewer, 2001, Erickson, 1995). Freedom and creativity, for example, were found to be more common and more impactful among singles (Kislev, 2018). Yet, such a world of content cannot come to light with the mere question about voluntary/involuntary singlehood, nor with the question about stable or temporary singlehood. Interestingly, one participant cited by Stein himself touches upon the identity discourse, even if it was not analysed as such by Stein:

“What does it mean for me to be single? There is a whole part of me that sees as freedom the possibilities of meeting different people and having different kinds of relationships, which is the exciting part. And then, there is the part of me that looks at where I’m not doing what I’m supposed to be doing”.

(Stein, 1975, p. 497)

Although Stein defined this participant as one who chose singlehood, the conflict between feeling free and feeling part of the norm is apparent and seems to be more of a negotiated stance. Moreover, even if we accept that this participant chose to be single despite the conflict described, the choice itself does not tell us much about the ways in which this choice folds out. Instead, focusing on the aspect of freedom in this statement is more revealing in giving meaning to singlehood. Therefore, interpreting singlehood as a matter of identity is important, exactly as it was done for the gender, racial, sexual, and ethnic categories. In turn, such a shift in conceptualisation opens up the ground for more thinking about the possibilities one has as a single and the implications each possibility entails, as will be discussed below.

Despite the fact that most research has focused on the reasons and consequences of singlehood, singlehood is now emerging as a social category and identity. In many situations, asserting one’s identity can be a form of resistance or empowerment (Cruikshank, 1999, Kislev, 2012). It can also be a way for minority groups to build communities and support systems, as well as challenge and push back against the dominant culture’s biases and stereotypes (e.g., Alimahomed, 2010, Kislev, 2014, 2017, Nagoshi & Brzuzy, 2010).

Thus, identity theory sheds light on the wider context in which singlehood is formed and maintained as well as its content. Thinking of singlehood in identity terms has far-reaching implications for a set of attitudes, behaviours, and social interactions. In research and theory, such identification possibilities resemble those that appeared in research on other communities (e.g., Thumma, 1991, Valentine, 1993). In particular, applying this discourse to the singlehood literature is a pathway to understanding new and emerging social categories among today’s singles and their implications.

To be clear, the term social identity is used here as a person’s sense of self as a member of a particular social group or category, which is formed based on various characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, and social class (Ashmore et al., 2004, Hornsey, 2008). These identities are shaped by the social norms, values, and expectations of the groups to which a person belongs, as well as by their personal experiences and interactions with others (Howard, 2000, Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Social identities are an important part of an individual’s overall sense of self and can influence how they perceive themselves and how others perceive and treat them (Hornung et al., 2019). They can also influence an individual’s behaviour, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as their opportunities and experiences (Howard, 2000, Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019).

Importantly, the term social identity is not used here only as a positive evaluation of one’s self-concept, but also as a negative one (Blanz et al., ,1998 Mummendey et al., 1999). Thus, it is conceptualised as the part of an individual’s self-concept derived from a social group’s membership together with the positive or negative value and emotional significance attached to that membership. Such positive or negative self-concept is derived from one’s own stance as well as one’s social and political contexts (Hogg & Smith, 2007, Huddy, 2001). In turn, social identities are not fixed or static but rather can change and evolve over time (Turner & Onorato, 2014). Individuals usually seek to identify with groups with a positive social status and differentiate themselves from groups with a lower social status. An individual may have multiple social identities that intersect and overlap, and the relative importance of these identities may also vary depending on the context (Ellemers et al., 2002).

In light of these definitions, we can turn back to singles and their work around their self-perception as well as the way society views them. Personality and identity theories are useful here to better understand the possibilities in this sense. According to Allport (1961) or Fiske and Taylor (1991), a core identity is the individual’s sense of self as a unique and distinct person. It is the foundation of individuals’ personal identity and represents their most enduring and fundamental qualities and characteristics. The opposite of a core identity would be a weaker or less defined sense of self, or a lack of a clear personal identity (see also in: Hitlin, 2003, Hogan & Sherman, 2020).

In referring to an organisation analysis, Aaker (1996) defines the core identity as representing the fundamental values and attributes that define the brand and differentiate it from its competitors. A core identity should not only be enduring and consistent over time but also the foundation upon which all other aspects of the brand are built. In contrast, an extended identity refers to the various elements that contribute to a brand’s identity beyond its core essences, such as its logo, messaging and tone of voice, products, and customer experience. In personality terms, an extended identity is thus more narrow, external, flexible, and subject to change, while a core identity is more enduring, defining, strictly held, and felt as ingrained.

Borrowing these terminologies into the analysis of singles’ self-sense sheds light on the possibilities therein: a simple division of those seeing their singlehood as peripheral, fluid, and subject to change (most singles, especially those who seek to partner), and those seeing their singlehood as the core of their identity.

Yet, many singles also reject their status as singles or experience conflict vis-à-vis society. The majority hold a peripheral identity of singlehood and want to partner. They may thus feel just pressured in these cases. Others, however, whose level of identification with singlehood is high are a different case, an understudied and undertheorised sub-group. In contrast to identities developed with low conflict, these singles feel they need to fight over their right to be single for the long haul (DePaulo, 2007, Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020). The quote brought above from Stein’s study is one example. Thus, the concept of counter-normative identities (Marcussen & Asencio, 2016) or “stigmatised identities” (Burke & Stryker, 2016, Quinn, 2006, Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013) is crucial here. In contrast to “normal” identities, “stigmatised identities” are those that go against the norm in society (Burke & Stryker, 2016). A counter-normative identity is viewed by society as inappropriate or counters what is expected of an individual (Long, 2016b). For example, some people belonging to religious minority groups may face stigmatisation, prejudice, and discrimination based on their beliefs and practices that are expected to be changed.

It is not uncommon for people who are single to experience conflict or discomfort with their single status (Girme et al., 2022). This can be especially true if they feel pressure from societal expectations or if they are not living up to their families’ expectations of what their lives should look like. Similar to other counter-normative identities, this situation entails feeling pressured about their relationship status without fitting in with the constraints of the external environment (Hostetler, 2009, Kislev, 2019). Being single may feel like a source of isolation or loneliness for these people, particularly if couples surround them (Adamczyk, 2016, Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020). This can be a frustrating and difficult experience and may lead to feelings of disappointment or inadequacy (Girme et al., 2022, Kislev, 2021a).

Taking it all together, singlehood can be conceived with three main categories of identity: a stigmatised identity, a positive/negative peripheral identity, and an affirmed core identity, touching upon the discourse of essentialism, whether or not it has biological roots (Haslam et al., 2000, Yzerbyt et al., 2004). This categorisation can be thought of as a movement from high negative numbers to numbers around zero (both positive and negative) to high positive numbers. Such a categorisation makes it easier to understand how individuals may experience their singlehood. The following sections elaborate on this proposal and demonstrate its details and implications.

Singlehood as a counter-normative identity

The first way in which singles are viewed or view themselves can be explained by the concept of counter-normative identities (Burke & Stryker, 2016, Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020, Long, 2016b, Marcussen & Asencio, 2016, Quinn, 2006, Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). Looking at singlehood from the lens of relationship and marriage, and viewing singles as lacking, as a result, has led to “singlism” – the “stigmatising of adults who are single” (DePaulo, 2007, p. 6). Specifically, married people have been described among research participants as “mature, stable, honest, happy, kind, and loving” while single people have been described as “immature, insecure, self-centred, unhappy, lonely, and ugly” (DePaulo & Morris, 2006, p. 251).

Indeed, social norms and stigmatisation may cause high conflict among singles and push many to seek out partners to undermine the reality of their singlehood (DePaulo, 2007, Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020, Klinenberg, 2012). In other words, single people may be heavily influenced by the broader concept of norms – the still unquestioned assumption that most people should conform to ideals of family life – in negotiating their attitude towards their own singleness (DePaulo, 2011). Many others believe that having a partner is essential to fulfill their personal needs and preferences (Pepping & MacDonald, 2019, Pepping et al., 2018). For them, not having a partner can lead to feelings of inferiority and even a sense of emptiness. Thus, while singles may leave the conflict as an external social struggle or personal challenge, the feeling of a marginalised stance is widely shared among many (Kislev, 2019, Klinenberg, 2012, Stein, 1975).

In turn, singles who want to stay single may experience negative emotions associated with a counter-normative identity and the internalisation of negative traits attributed to singlehood (Kislev, 2019, Moorman, 2020). As apparent in other counter-normative identities, it can cause mental illness, reduced self-esteem, depression, and a negative self-identity (Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015, Fink, 1992, Marcussen & Asencio, 2016, Thoits, 2011).

A study focused on young single women found that single women constantly received messages from their social networks that made them feel stigmatised. For example, they received messages implying that the number of eligible men was dwindling and that they were on a “deviant life path” (Sharp & Ganong, 2011, p. 966). The stigma associated with a perceived deviant path was exacerbated by triggers apparent in the young women’s daily lives, such as couple-oriented holidays and events.

Fisher and Sakaluk (2020) conducted two studies to gain deeper insight into the stigmatisation of single individuals by examining their group dynamics, including group identification, perception, discrimination, and prejudice. In Study 1, they found that singles felt discriminated against as singles compared to other types of discrimination and exhibited lower identification with being single as compared to other group identities. Study 2 revealed that singles were rated lower in group-like coherence (entitativity) compared to individuals in romantic relationships and that prejudice towards singles was more acceptable than prejudice towards other groups. Similarly, Reynolds et al. (2007) found that women struggled to define their single status as legitimate while being severely constrained by existing cultural norms.

Finally, some studies shed light on the mechanisms of counter-normative identity processing, and how a counter-normative identity can be developed and changed. One study, for example, found that single Chinese women challenge the negative stereotypes associated with their singlehood by actively rejecting normative norms and by reframing the word “leftover women” (used to describe single women) to “victorious women,” who are autonomous, self-reliant, and deeply connected to non-traditional forms of relations (Zhang, 2020).

Singlehood as a peripheral identity

Alongside the concept of singlehood as a stigmatised identity or counter-normative identity, a second type of identity can be defined: the peripheral or secondary identity. In this context, a peripheral identity can be annexed or discarded according to the individual’s preference, external influences, and with time. Other examples of such identities include occupations, volunteering, and even religious following or sexual preference in some cases (Akosah-Twumasi et al., 2018, Atewologun et al., 2017, Héliot et al., 2020, Waite et al., 2019). Singlehood, in this sense, is a more fluid identity component to the extent that individuals ascribe to the single lifestyle based on a set of personal and social preferences and influences (Park & MacDonald, 2023).

Eck’s (2013) study was based on interviews conducted with single men first in 2004, and then in 2008 to assess their perceptions of their singlehood over time. She found that some single men recorded identity turns while reflecting on their past, present, and future. Some single men who hoped to have gotten married at a certain point had gradually shifted their expectations for marriage from hoping to get married to considering embracing singlehood by focusing on the benefits of being single (e.g., autonomy and freedom) and by questioning whether marriage is a right fit for them. This gave them justification for accepting an “unanticipated state” of relationship and marital status (Eck, 2013, p. 58). Such processes resemble those that appear among workers who engage with and disengage from their work (Sonnentag, 2012).

Thus, singles’ identity can be viewed not as a fixed category but as an individual process of meaning-making (Frable, 1997, McAdams, 1995, Sherif, 1982, Tajfel, 1974). In this way, singlehood can be explored in how single adults create meaning around their single status, accept it, and adopt a matching cognitive and behavioural scheme (Kislev, 2019), as Frable (1997, p. 140) writes: “New in the study of identity is … to study how these meanings interact with specific situations for individuals. Also new is the empowerment of disenfranchised category members; by writing about the diverse experiences of being ‘Other.’” Alternatively, singles who hold singlehood as a peripheral identity can feel they want to discard this stance and partner up. In other words, singlehood does not define the essence of singles with a peripheral identity and can be altered with time or a personal decision (Manser & Brown, 1980). The fluidity of this category comes into play in the malleable nature of the singlehood identity one holds. Over time, single individuals may conclude that the single lifestyle is right for them, but they can also reject their single status and feel the need to partner up.

Recent findings on the LGBTQ+ community members discuss such a possibility extensively, in which individuals feel they have control over their identity choices, together with the feeling that society is varied and should embrace diversity (Ruberg & Ruelos, 2020). In the same manner, singlehood can be annexed as an identity possibility without being rooted in the individual person’s essence. Rather, it is socially and interactionally determined. Thus, the category of singlehood does not need to have essential or core features but rather be refabricated and modelled as a cultural and social script (Cerulo, 1997). Gender identity is a possible example of such construction, separated from physiological features and attached to psychologically and socially assigned meanings (Bem, 1993).

Consequently, singlehood is emerging as an identity, albeit peripheral, in the sense that it may fold out into many areas of life. On the positive side, “happy singles” are now being studied in how their decision to be single is associated with various aspects of life, including sociability, sexuality, values, work, and life satisfaction (Casper & DePaulo, 2012; DePaulo, 2011, DePaulo, 2014, DePaulo, , DePaulo, 2016, DePaulo, 2018; Kislev, 2018, 2019, 2020a, 2020c 2021a, 2021b, 2022a, forthcoming; Park et al., 2021; Wynne & Chowkhani, 2022).

For example, based on the European Social Survey and the Pairfam dataset I showed how singles derive greater happiness from their social activity (Kislev, 2020c), and that importance of friends and social satisfaction are correlated with lower relationship desire (Kislev, 2020b). I also showed how holding post-materialist views results in greater happiness levels for singles than it does so for cohabiters and married individuals (Kislev, 2018). Another example is based on the Pairfam dataset, where I analysed four work mechanisms – after-hours working, workload, weekly working hours, and meeting colleagues after work – in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses and showed that all groups are negatively impacted by workload, but meeting colleagues after work had a relatively positive effect on unpartnered singles (Kislev, 2022b). A fourth and final example is how sexual variables are related to relationship desire (voluntary and involuntary singlehood). I showed (Kislev, 2021b) that voluntary singlehood positively correlates with sexual satisfaction among all four groups. Moreover, voluntary singlehood among women of both groups negatively correlates with sex frequency, desired sex frequency, and pornography usage, while among men voluntary singlehood negatively correlates with desired sex frequency.

Positive identity elements in singles’ self-view may also provide a sense of purpose and meaning at the expense of shame and embarrassment (Long, 2016a). Different singlehood perceptions may, in turn, reflect more general views of autonomy and self-determination (Adamczyk, 2017, Reynolds et al., 2007). This is in line with the literature on identity work and well-being among other groups (Fingerhut et al., 2010).

While the concept of “happy singles” highlights positive experiences, it is also important to acknowledge that singlehood can be accompanied by a peripheral negative identity. In this case, singlehood is not a counter-normative identity in the sense that individuals feel they do not have an alternative but to experience social pressure and societal stigmatisation. As Girme et al. (2022) show in their review, many singles feel that their singlehood might be changed. In fact, many may want to partner up. Yet, their current singlehood entails negativity, feelings of pressure, and even isolation (Adamczyk, 2016, Kislev, 2019, 2021a). It becomes a peripheral identity in the sense that it affects their lifestyle (e.g., using dating apps, going to pubs and clubs to meet potential partners, or moving to urban centres to avoid their family pressure) but not their core self-view (Chan & Kiang, 2021, Hobbs et al., 2017, Marsh, 2023).

Thus, singlehood is not just voluntary but also socially constructed and determined by one’s personal experiences, in line with the social constructionist approach to identity (Berger et al., 1966, Goffman, 1959). It is viewed and constructed through socio-historical circumstances, which are fluid and prone to change, unlike singlehood viewed as a core identity, an identity category that will be presented in the following section.

Singlehood as a core identity

In contrast to singlehood as a counter-normative and peripheral identity, more recent findings and literature are emerging linking singlehood with the concept of essentialism (Haslam et al., 2000, Yzerbyt et al., 2004) and referring to some singles as “singles at heart” (DePaulo, 2014, DePaulo, 2023), for example. In this way, this term describes individuals whose personality and nature mean that they feel better when they are not in relationships and believe that this is their authentic selves. This does not mean that it is ingrained in their genetics or biological development. Such a direction is yet to be examined. The argument is more modest in that some single people view their singleness as determinantal.

Singlehood is, therefore, defined in this context as a core identity (Aaker, 1996, Allport, 1961). It is not constructed based on choice. Instead, it emerges as a tendency for individuals early on in their lives as they wish to remain single for the long haul. For these singles, being single is deeply ingrained in their essence as individuals.

This definition goes beyond the classic social constructionist approach to identity (Berger et al., 1966, Goffman, 1959) as it is emerging as having essential features (Cerulo, 1997). Sex and gender identities are but one example of such division, separated by physiological/essential features on one side and psychologically and socially assigned meanings on the other side (Lindqvist et al., 2021). It is important to note here that these singles can report falling in love and/or having a sexual drive. What defines them, however, is the fact that they feel they are a-nuptial or a-coupled (DePaulo, 2015b, DePaulo, , Kislev, 2019, Moore & Radtke, 2015).

Of course, it can be argued that individuals can switch groups if they wish to do so, even in these cases, but the groups are different in terms of what they feel about their singleness and to what extent they accept it for the long haul. While many still view singlehood in reference to other marital and relationship groups, individuals with a core singlehood identity view it differently: singlehood in and of itself is the end goal in life. Those who have embraced singlehood as a core identity radically accept their status a-priori.

As part of a larger study of 210 people over 60 (Gubrium, 1975), 22 single elderly persons were interviewed. The answers, in fact, were lumped together in the analysis at the time, but some are strikingly different and should be re-read now and analysed separately. Indeed, many interviewees did not see singlehood as an identity. They described their way to singlehood as forced. For example, one stated: “just as I was finishing high school, my mother got very ill and my father died. I had to be there while she was ill. I also had to care for my older aunt and grandmother” (Gubrium, 1975, p. 37). Another one said: “I couldn’t marry under the circumstances. Unfortunately, my father was an alcoholic. And my brothers had serious accidents. So there were a lot of dependents” (Gubrium, 1975, p. 37). However, and in contrast to these statements, another interviewee treated the singlehood situation fundamentally differently, even not as a matter of choice, but rather a matter of nature: “Some people like to get married and some don’t. You’re more free when you’re single; not much responsibility” (Gubrium, 1975, p. 36).

Another study (Timonen & Doyle, 2014) found that those who can be categorised as “singles at heart” valued independence and sought to pursue other interests such as career advancement and travel. Some of the participants in this study expressed either their disinterest or their unsuitability for coupled life and/or motherhood. One participant, for example, named Monica, noted that from a young age, she had the determination to remain single: “ … that’s why I didn’t get involved, wouldn’t want to be, no, never … I used to say [to my mother] you have three daughters … one’s married, one’s a widow and the other is going to be an old maid” (Timonen and Doyle 2014, 1759). Thus, singles with a core identity operate from their authentic selves, where their inner worlds are in congruence with the external world they have created for themselves, irrespective of changing circumstances and what society has prescribed as “normal” (DePaulo, 2007, DePaulo, 2014, DePaulo & Morris, 2006).

Intersectionality

Within this discussion on singlehood typology, one cannot leave the issue of intersectionality (Girme et al., 2022, Kislev & Marsh, 2023, Lavender‐Stott, 2023). Indeed, it is important to consider multiple identities when thinking about singlehood. Research shows that holding multiple identities determines the experiences of individuals in complex and non-linear ways (Ramarajan, 2014, Settles, 2004). Hostetler (2009), for example, shows how single gay men feel doubly stigmatised.

First, it is important to note gender differences when analysing singles’ identities. The negative stereotypes of singlehood are more often applied to women than men. Single women, many times in contrast to single men, are depicted as leading sexless, empty, meaningless lives and as morally lacking or occupying a confrontational position against the patriarchy (Lahad, 2017, Luke & Poulin, 2023, Moore & Radtke, 2015). This, of course, has a cultural aspect that determines the ways gender differences are viewed and, more specifically, how single women are perceived (Gargan, 1986, Ochnik & Slonim, 2020). Moreover, not only are single men and single women perceived differently, but normative ideas about marriage, family life, and valid trajectories influence the different subjective experiences of single men and women (Bernard-Allan, 2016). Accordingly, women are more likely than men to see their singlehood in negative or unstable terms.

Age is another factor to consider when seeking to understand singles’ experiences as they navigate the tension and work around their identity (Ermer & Keenoy, 2023, Hill Roy et al., 2022, Kislev, 2022a, Park, Page-Gould, et al., 2022). Singles move from an age when a marriage or committed couplehood should have happened (according to societal standards) to an age(s) when it is considered “too late.” Intersecting with gender and identity formation, research about single women (Lahad, 2017, Mandujano-Salazar, 2019) shows that they struggle with accepting their single identity in their late thirties as women experience acute feelings of missing out, more than men. Others (Böger & Huxhold, , Hill Roy et al., 2022, Park, Page-Gould, et al., 2022), however, found that older age is related to more satisfaction with singlehood. These mixed findings might be explained by the categorisation proposed here in relation to how singles view their singlehood identity.

Race is also a variable to be considered in this context (Cole, 2009, Crenshaw, 2018, Shields, 2008). One study (Pudrovska et al., 2006) found, for example, that single Black women had the least levels of dissatisfaction with their single status as opposed to White singles, on one side, and Black men, on the other. The low levels of dissatisfaction with singlehood exhibited by Black women are explained by the normative standard of singleness amongst Black communities due to external social factors such as high rates of Black male mortality and incarceration (Moorman, 2020). This shows that when identities intersect, individuals may feel less conflict in adopting certain identities (see also in: Council et al., 2023, Marsh et al., 2007). By considering these intersections, researchers can gain a more nuanced and inclusive look at the diverse experiences of single individuals in building their identities.

Directions for future research

Perhaps the closest and practically operationalised measure of voluntary singlehood, to distinguish from involuntary singlehood is that of low levels of relationship desire (e.g., a low score on the question “how interested are you in having a relationship”), which have been studied and theorised recently in relation to life aspects such as sociability, sexuality, work, and well-being (Kislev, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b, Lavender‐Stott, 2023, Park et al., 2021, Park, MacDonald, et al., 2022, Slonim et al., 2015). In this way, signs of different social and psychological schemes among singles with different relationship desire levels have started to accumulate.

However, the measure of relationship desire does not reflect the full spectrum of singles’ identity from counter-normative to peripheral to core identity, as discussed above. Future empirical research would need to distinguish between these concepts. Otherwise, it may lead to mixed findings in research on singlehood. The reason for such mixed results is, for example, that because individuals with a counter-normative identity are acutely aware of the stigma and discrimination they face, it may negatively impact their well-being. To a lesser extent, those who want to find a relationship but see their singlehood as negative, even if temporary, may be frustrated (Girme et al., 2022, Kislev, 2022c). In contrast, individuals with a positive singlehood identity (as a peripheral or core identity) may have higher well-being and life satisfaction. Thus, studies that do not consider the impact of identity formation may find that single people, overall, have lower well-being and life satisfaction compared to those in romantic relationships, while studies that do consider this may find that the well-being and life satisfaction of single people is more nuanced, identification-dependent, and may not always be lower compared to those in romantic relationships.

Similarly, complementary to the ability to spend time in solitude and benefit from being alone without experiencing excessive loneliness, singles, on average, are more likely to fill up their social calendars with volunteering and derive greater happiness from spending time with others (Kislev, 2020c). It appears that singles who adopt and accept their singlehood are those who assign more meaning to their social lives (Kislev, 2019, 2020b). They derive emotional, social, and material support from friendships and make them central to their lives (Bellotti, 2008, DePaulo, , Kislev, 2019). Some singles are indeed adapting to a new reality in which their singlehood is socially contextualised (Klinenberg, 2012), especially with the possibilities provided by ICT and the emergence of networked individualism (Kislev, 2022d, Raine & Wellman, 2012, Wellman, 2012). This line of research is important as it distinguishes this type of singles from those having social anxiety, for example, a trait often ascribed to long-term singles (La Greca & Harrison, 2005, Porter & Chambless, 2014) or from those who identify with the Incel movement (Speckhard et al., 2021).

Moreover, in considering the hypothesis of a structural tie between disinterest in romantic relationships and disinterest in relationships in general, it is essential to explore the broader implications of singlehood and its impact on various social connections. Some studies have argued that the fulfilment derived from romantic relationships can also be found in other relationships (DePaulo, , DePaulo, 2016), highlighting that romantic relationships are not inherently special. Building on this notion, it becomes relevant to examine whether lower interest in romantic relationships may correspond, to some extent, with reduced interest in relationships across different domains. This is echoed in the findings of the recent study by (Park et al., 2023), where individuals who expressed the highest satisfaction with singlehood also demonstrated lower interest in social connections encompassing romantic, friend, and family relationships. This mix of observations and cases prompts us to consider the interplay between singlehood identity, one’s overall interest in relationships, and the factors that contribute to the perceived naturalness of singlehood for different individuals. Therefore, separating the larger group of singles, which is often lumped together although it comprises around half of the overall Western adult population, is crucial in understanding what is behind the “grand mean” of this populace.

More broadly, rather than looking at singles from the mere perspective of “how they got here,” research should focus on how the different groups of singles live their lives, view themselves and others, create communities and social networks, and adopt certain values. Existing findings imply that singlehood is becoming more accepted as an identity, and the stronger its conception as essential, the more easily it is associated with positive effects such as life and social satisfaction, networking, personal freedom, autonomy, and sexual liberalism, rather than with self-perceptions of failure or personal deficits (Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015, DePaulo, , Kislev, 2018, 2019, 2020a). Yet, individuals who strongly identify with their single status may still face challenges and feelings of disappointment if their expectations are unmet. Just like in the Suffocation of Marriage model (Finkel et al., 2014), there can be a discrepancy between the idealised vision of singlehood and the actual lived experiences. Thus, research on what each self-view means for other aspects of life as well as for one’s expectations is highly needed.

Taking this even further, if singlehood is understood as an identity, it becomes apparent that it can extend beyond individuals who are not currently in a partnership (similar to works done in fields such as sexuality and gender, e.g., Bornstein, 1994, Butler, 1990). In fact, some partnered individuals may also identify themselves as singles in certain contexts. This may occur when they prioritise their personal autonomy and maintain a strong sense of individuality within their relationship. Additionally, there are individuals who may even consider themselves “closeted singles.” These individuals may be in committed relationships or marriages but still privately identify with the singlehood identity due to personal preferences, lifestyle choices, or the desire to maintain a separate sense of self within their partnership. The understanding of singlehood as an identity thus becomes more nuanced, acknowledging that it can manifest in various ways within the context of different relationships.

The singlehood identity conceptualisation is, therefore, highly important. Differences are expected to become apparent when singlehood is viewed as part of counter-normative, peripheral, or core identities in qualitative and quantitative future studies. It is important for research in fields such as relationships, divorce, marriage, singlehood, social networks, and sexuality to consider these different concepts of identity to accurately capture single people’s diverse experiences and avoid mixed findings.

More broadly, the concept of singlehood as an identity has important theoretical implications for social identity theory. The recognition of singlehood as an identity emphasises that relationship status can also play a significant role in shaping one’s identity, impacting how individuals perceive themselves, their self-esteem, and their interactions with others. By expanding the scope of social identity theory to include singlehood, the range of identities individuals can identify with is broadened, thereby capturing the complex and multifaceted nature of human identity.

Limitations

While the conceptualisation of singlehood as an identity offers valuable insights, there are several limitations to consider. First, the proposed categorisation of singlehood identity, ranging from stigmatised to peripheral to affirmed core identity, is a simplified representation that may not capture the full complexity of individuals’ experiences. Singlehood identity is multifaceted and can be influenced by various personal, social, and cultural factors. Therefore, a more nuanced and comprehensive framework may be needed to account for an even more diverse range of identities and experiences within the singlehood context.

Second, the existing literature on singlehood identity is still relatively limited, and there is a need for more empirical studies to validate and expand upon the proposed conceptualisation. Moreover, existing surveys and datasets hardly ask about the self-view and self-concept of singles as such. Thus, tailored questionnaires and longitudinal studies would provide valuable insights into the variability of singlehood identity and its stability over time.

Third, most studies in this growing field have predominantly focused on Western societies, which may not fully represent the experiences and perspectives of singles from diverse cultural backgrounds. It is important for future research to include a more diverse range of participants and cultural contexts to enhance the generalisability and applicability of the findings. In particular, it is important to consider different socio-ecological dimensions, such as relational mobility, which was shown to vary between countries, regions, and cultures (Thomson et al., 2018, Yuki & Schug, 2020).

Despite these limitations, the conceptualisation of singlehood as an identity offers a valuable framework for understanding the diverse experiences and implications associated with being single. It highlights the need for further research to explore the complexities of singlehood identity and its interplay with individual, social, and cultural factors, ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of singlehood in contemporary society.

Implications for psychology, society, and policy

It appears that the convergence of the various psychological and social forces that lead to singlehood will only accelerate in the future (Kislev, 2019, Klinenberg, 2012). The share of the population of singles is growing (Census, 2021a, Census, 2021b, Guilmoto & de Loenzien, 2015, Park & Choi, 2015, Podhisita & Xenos, 2015, Úmweltbùndesamt, 2022), and the norms and functions of society are fundamentally shifting to be more inclusive of singles, in general, and singles who strongly and positively identify as such, in particular (Keeney et al., 2013, Kislev, 2019, 2022d). Given these trends, it is crucial to start thinking about research designs, organisational and personal psychological praxis, and policymaking that fit and address the needs and phenomena of today’s singlehood.

Because the literature on singles has primarily focused on singlehood as a technical status to a large extent, the literature on singlehood as an identity is scant and close to non-existent. Yet, illuminating this new and additional self-view formation may advance the interests of these single people. Conceptualising singlehood as an identity with the categorisation described above has the potential to be a valuable tool in future studies. It offers a way to understand how singles’ identities can change over time, from being seen negatively to having a more positive and affirmed sense of self. This categorisation can also be applied as a scale by assigning numbers to these different self-views, with high negative numbers representing the stigmatised identity, numbers around zero representing seeing singlehood as positive or negative but without being highly salient to the overall self-concept, and high positive numbers representing seeing singlehood as an accepted core identity. The simplicity of this model makes it easy to use in different research projects as a Singlehood Identity Index (SII). It can help researchers explore the impact of societal norms and self-perception on how people see themselves. By using this model, future studies can gather important data with correlative indicators to deepen our understanding of singles and contribute to the ongoing academic discussions in this field.

It may also be a starting point for singles to collectively come together as a group, support each other, and share experiences for the purposes of democratic action. As of now, those who identify with their singlehood are yet to become a collective that precipitates the formation of a social movement that seeks out democratic participation to affect policy. But an argument can be made that those who ascribe to singlehood as a counter-normative or core identity are best placed to form a collective movement of singles under an umbrella that will include all types of singles. The formation of such a collective identity would resemble the LGBTQ+ or women’s social movements and would work in advancing democratic discussion towards more civil rights for singles. This should start with the recognition of singlehood as a legitimate identity comprised of individuals who define themselves as such and acknowledge their unique experiences with an element of politicisation (Callero, 2016).

In organisations, one possible implication in this direction is creating a single-friendly organisational culture that can reduce work-life conflict for singles, increase single employees’ sense of attachment and engagement, and benefit both the company and the employee (Kislev, 2022b, Park, MacDonald, et al., 2022). This can be done by implementing training to help supervisors understand how to manage their teams so that all members feel connected and supported regardless of their relationship and marital status. In addition, while corporations can still offer a variety of work incentives, such as health coverage for spouses and children and on-site daycare, they may also want to provide programs that benefit employees who identify as singles, such as health coverage for close friends, subsidies for fitness centres, education, and training opportunities, help with household maintenance, and even pet-care for singles who travel abroad. Once singlehood is an identity, such rights can be promoted and accepted.

Another example would be in the realm of civic rights. In a detailed article published by The Atlantic, the authors determine that over a lifetime, an average single person can pay as much as a million dollars more than a married one for healthcare, taxes, IRA, Social Security, and more (Arnold & Campbell, 2013). In fact, the authors found over 1,000 laws providing overt legal or financial benefits to married couples that are unavailable to singles. This is despite the Federal Code, Title 5, Part III, which reads, “The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit… discrimination because of marital status.”

Not only civic institutions but also psychologists, educators, and singles can fight discriminatory acts if singlehood identity is recognised. Findings suggest that prejudice towards singles may be more acceptable than prejudice towards other groups, underscoring the significance of addressing the stigmatisation faced by single individuals (Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020). Furthermore, Morris (2005) investigated the stigma awareness of singles and found a distinct lack of awareness of discrimination against singles (singlism), even among singles themselves. Specifically, only four percent of singles spontaneously listed singles as a stigmatised group. Even when explicitly asked whether singles were stigmatised, only 30% of singles and 23% of coupled individuals agreed. By comparison, 100% of gay men, 90% of obese people, 86% of African-Americans, and 72% of women recognised that their group was discriminated against. Yet, if the identity of singles is acknowledged, discriminatory praxis will be recognised, and singles’ rights could be protected.

In particular, the findings of Fisher and Sakaluk’s (2020) research shed light on the importance of comparing single individuals’ group identification and perception with that of other identities. By examining how singles identify themselves within the larger social context, we can better understand the unique challenges they face. The results of Fisher and Sakaluk (2020) indicate that singles may have a weaker sense of identification with their own group compared to other identities, such as those based on sexual orientation or nationality. At face value, the importance of identity and the perception of discrimination are likely to be positively linked for most identities (Giamo et al., 2012, Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002), including singles. However, findings from the study of Fisher and Sakaluk (2020) contradicted such a hypothesis regarding singles. Hence, it appears necessary to consider the level of awareness regarding the possibility of having a singlehood identity. This awareness may serve as a significant mediator for developing self-consciousness of group membership, as was shown in other cases (Duncan, 1999, Major et al., 2002). This comparison highlights the need to recognise singlehood’s diverse experiences and complexities, moving beyond a simplistic view of singles as a monolithic group. The categorisation offered in this paper can now promote such a view. Importantly, the strength of individuals’ singlehood identity may undergo changes when the definitions proposed here are applied in research and practice and become more common.

Thus, it is crucial for future research to follow this effect and investigate the implications of singlehood identity and how it compares to other identities over time once it is more recognised. While recent findings (Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020, Park et al., 2023) indicate that the identity of singles may currently be less cohesive and salient, it is important to acknowledge that this could potentially be altered with a clearer and more precise definition of the singlehood identity. In this way, further exploration in this area will contribute to a better understanding of individuals’ singlehood identity with its dynamics and potential for transformation. By recognising and addressing the complexities of singlehood identity, researchers and practitioners can work towards promoting inclusivity and supporting the well-being of singles in society.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable insights and constructive critiques, which significantly contributed to the enhancement of this manuscript. I also extend my appreciation to Prof. Galit Cohen-Blankstein who helped me sharpen the categorisation presented in this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Data availability statement

This research paper does not involve the collection or analysis of primary data.

Notes

¹ The Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics, or Pairfam is a longitudinal study conducted annually from 2008 until 2022 and is now part of the German family demographic panel, FReDA. The study examines the dynamics of couple relationships, family formation, and child development in Germany. The Pairfam collects data from approximately 12,000 individuals and their partners, parents, and children in various domains such as partnership and family dynamics, social networks, values and attitudes, and psychological constructs. A module on singlehood is part of the study, including questions such as “how interested are you in having a relationship?” and statements such as “Being single, I find many things easier”