Content uploaded by Elyakim Kislev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elyakim Kislev on Aug 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pers20
European Review of Social Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pers20
Singlehood as an identity
Elyakim Kislev
To cite this article: Elyakim Kislev (2023): Singlehood as an identity, European Review of Social
Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937
Published online: 31 Jul 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Singlehood as an identity
Elyakim Kislev
The Federmann School of Public Policy and Governance, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
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 rst 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 oers 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 discrimi-
nation, 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.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 23 March 2023; Accepted 24 July 2023
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
CONTACT Elyakim Kislev elyakim.kislev@mail.huji.ac.il Federmann School of Public Policy and
Governance, Hebrew University, Campus Mount Scopus Jerusalem 91905, Israel
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937
© 2023 European Association of Social Psychology
percentage of the population in Western countries comprises singles, single-
hood 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 some-
one 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 dataset
1
(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 com-
mitted 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
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 devel-
opment 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”
2E. KISLEV
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 orien-
tation, 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 contextua-
lised 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 indivi-
dual’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 single-
hood 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
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
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 dis-
cussing the implications of this new conceptualisation with concrete
examples.
Reasons for singlehood
One major scholastic stream has explored various social forces and psycho-
logical 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 opportu-
nities for women, economic considerations, capitalist and consumerist
trends, religious changes, migration patterns, and the influence of technol-
ogy have all been identified as contributing to the shifting landscape of
4E. KISLEV
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 disappoint-
ment 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 partner-
ships and marriage, influenced by rising divorce rates, can impact indivi-
duals’ 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 under-
lying 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,
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5
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 under-
standing 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 fol-
lowing 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
6E. KISLEV
to be single in spite of their desire to partner up. Some of these circum-
stances 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 doubt-
ful 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 stabi-
lity 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 under-
mine 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, neuroti-
cism, extraversion, and life satisfaction. The findings highlight the hetero-
geneity among singles and provide insights into the complex dynamics
influencing their well-being.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7
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 tempor-
ary 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 stereo-
types (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 possibi-
lities 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.
8E. KISLEV
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, nation-
ality, sexual orientation, and social class (Ashmore et al., 2004, Hornsey,
2008). These identities are shaped by the social norms, values, and expecta-
tions 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,
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9
products, and customer experience. In personality terms, an extended iden-
tity 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, espe-
cially 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 identi-
ties 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, “stigma-
tised identities” are those that go against the norm in society (Burke &
Stryker, 2016). A counter-normative identity is viewed by society as inap-
propriate 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 disappoint-
ment 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
10 E. KISLEV
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 sin-
glehood 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 con-
form 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 con-
stantly 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.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 11
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, volunteer-
ing, 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 expecta-
tions 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
12 E. KISLEV
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 single-
hood 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 psycho-
logically 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).
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 13
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 single-
hood 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 single-
hood 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 construc-
tionist 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
14 E. KISLEV
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.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 15
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 partici-
pants 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 deter-
mines 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 per-
ceived 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
16 E. KISLEV
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
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 17
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 con-
textualised (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 dis-
interest 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 inter-
est in relationships, and the factors that contribute to the perceived natural-
ness of singlehood for different individuals. Therefore, separating the larger
group of singles, which is often lumped together although it comprises
18 E. KISLEV
around half of the overall Western adult population, is crucial in under-
standing 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 cur-
rently in a partnership (similar to works done in fields such as sexuality and
gender, e.g., Bornstein, 1994, Butler, 1990). In fact, some partnered indivi-
duals 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 indi-
viduals who may even consider themselves “closeted singles.” These indivi-
duals 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 single-
hood as an identity emphasises that relationship status can also play
a significant role in shaping one’s identity, impacting how individuals per-
ceive themselves, their self-esteem, and their interactions with others. By
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 19
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 cate-
gorisation 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 multifa-
ceted 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 data-
sets 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 per-
spectives 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 iden-
tity 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 &
20 E. KISLEV
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 categor-
isation 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 indica-
tors 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 move-
ment that seeks out democratic participation to affect policy. But an argu-
ment 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 dis-
cussion 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,
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 21
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 single-
hood 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 stig-
matisation 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
22 E. KISLEV
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 single-
hood’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 defini-
tions 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 iden-
tities 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 con-
tribute 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 con-
tributed 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.
ORCID
Elyakim Kislev http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5587-2031
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 23
Data availability statement
This research paper does not involve the collection or analysis of primary
data.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.
Adamczyk, K. (2016). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support
among single and partnered young adults. Current Psychology, 35(4), 674–689.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7
Adamczyk, K. (2017). Voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’
mental health: An investigation of mediating role of romantic loneliness.
Current Psychology, 36(4), 888–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9478-3
Adamczyk, K., & Segrin, C. (2015). Perceived social support and mental health
among single vs. partnered Polish young adults. Current Psychology, 34(1),
82–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9242-5
Akosah-Twumasi, P., Emeto, T. I., Lindsay, D., Tsey, K., & Malau-Aduli, B. S. (2018).
A systematic review of factors that influence youths career choices—the role of
culture. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00058
Alimahomed, S. (2010). Thinking outside the rainbow: Women of color redefining
queer politics and identity. Social Identities, 16(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504631003688849
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 628–640. https://doi.org/10.2307/
353723
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/
10.2307/353132
Arnold, L., & Campbell, C. (2013). The high price of being single in America. The
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-
being-single-in-america/267043/
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing frame-
work for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Atewologun, D., Kutzer, R., Doldor, E., Anderson, D., & Sealy, R. (2017). Individual‐
level foci of identification at work: A systematic review of the literature.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijmr.12148
Beckmeyer, J. J., & Jamison, T. B. (2023). Empowering, pragmatic, or disappointing:
Appraisals of singlehood during emerging and established adulthood. Emerging
Adulthood, 11(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968221099123
Bellotti, E. (2008). What are friends for? Elective communities of single people. Social
Networks, 30(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.07.001
Bem, S. L. (1993). Transforming the debate on sexual inequality: From biological
difference to institutionalized androcentrism. Yale University Press.
Berger, P. L., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality:
A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor.
24 E. KISLEV
Bergström, M., & Brée, S. (2023). Not a single meaning: Definition and evolution of
singlehood in France and the United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12519
Bernard-Allan, V. Y. (2016). It is not good to be alone; singleness and the Black
Seventh-day Adventist Woman. UCL (University College London)].
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Strategic responses to
negative social identity: An empirical systematization of field data. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 28(5), 697–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992
(199809/10)28:5<697::AID-EJSP889>3.0.CO;2-#open_in_newISSN0046-2772
Böger, A., & Huxhold, O. (2018). Age-related changes in emotional qualities of the
social network from middle adulthood into old age: How do they relate to the
experience of loneliness? Psychology and Aging, 33(3), 482. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pag0000222
Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender outlaw: On men, women, and the rest of us. Routledge.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political
psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-
895X.00229
Brown, A. (2020). A profile of single Americans. Pew Research Center. https://www.
pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/
Brüderl, J., Drobnič, S., Hank, K., Johannes Huinink, B., Nauck, F. J. N., Walper, S.,
Alt, P., Borschel, E., Bozoyan, C., Buhr, P., Finn, C., Garrett, M., Greischel, H.,
Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B., Lenke, R., Müller, B. . . . Wilhelm, B. (2021).
The German family panel (pairfam). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5678 Data
file Version 12.0. 0. https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5678.12.0.0
Bumpass, L. L., Martin, T. C., & Sweet, J. A. (1991). The impact of family background
and early marital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family Issues, 12(1),
22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251391012001003
Burke, P. J., & Stryker, S. (2016). Identity theory. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.),
New Directions in Identity Theory and Research (pp. 657–682). https://doi.org/10.
1093/acprof:oso/9780190457532.003.0023
Burt, S., Donnellan, M., Humbad, M. N., Hicks, B. M., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G.
(2010). Does marriage inhibit antisocial behavior?: An examination of selection vs
causation via a longitudinal twin design. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(12),
1309–1315. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.159
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Callero, P. L. (2016). Identity and social capital: How to advance democracy at the
level of interaction. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity
theory and research (pp. 75–106). Oxford University Press.
Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the
21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00728.x
Casper, W. J., & DePaulo, B. (2012). A new layer to inclusion: Creating singles-
friendly work environments. In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.),
Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations (pp. 217–234). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4059-4_12
Census, U. (2021a). Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic
Supplement, 2001, 2011, And 2021. https://www.census.gov/library/visualiza
tions/2021/comm/living-arrangements-over-the-decades.html
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 25
Census, U. (2021b). Marital Status of the Population 15 Years Old and Over by Sex,
Race and Hispanic Origin: 1950 to Present. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/
time-series/demo/families/marital.html
Census of India. (2011). Houselisting and Housing Census Data. http://www.censu
sindia.gov.in/2011census
Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual
Review of Sociology, 23(1), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385
Chan, M., & Kiang, L. (2021). The ecology of dating preferences among Asian
American adolescents in emerging immigrant communities. In Conceptual and
methodological approaches to navigating immigrant ecologies (pp. 67–88). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50235-5_5
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.
00058.x
Chryssochoou, X. (2003). Studying identity in social psychology: Some thoughts on
the definition of identity and its relation to action. Journal of Language and
Politics, 2(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.2.03chr
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American
Psychologist, 64(3), 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564
Council, L., Marsh, K. (2023). The Love Jones Cohort: Single and Living Alone (SALA)
by Choice, Circumstance or Both? Is Marriage the Option? Journal of Black Sexuality
and Relationships, 9(3), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2023.0004
Crenshaw, K. (2018). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist
politics [1989. In Feminist legal theory (pp. 57–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9780429500480-5
Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Meeus, W., & Rubini, M. (2022). Identities:
A developmental social-psychological perspective. European Review of Social
Psychology, 34(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2104987
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects.
Cornell university press.
[Record #4912Record #4912 is using a reference type undefined in this output
style.]
DePaulo, B. (2007). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored,
and still live happily ever after. Macmillan.
DePaulo, B. (2011). Singlism: What it is, why it matters, and how to stop it.
DoubleDoor Books.
DePaulo, B. (2014). Single in a society preoccupied with couples. In R. J. Coplan, J. C.
Bowker, & L. J. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on
social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 302–316). Wiley-Blackwell.
DePaulo, B. (2015a). How we live now: Redefining home and family in the 21st
Century. Simon and Schuster.
DePaulo, B. (2015b). Creating a community of single people. Single at Heart. https://blogs.
psychcentral.com/single-at-heart/2015/07/creating-a-community-of-single-people/
DePaulo, B. (2016). Single, no children: Who is your family?. CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform. https://books.google.co.il/books?id=
vdHajwEACAAJ
DePaulo, B. 2018. Towards a positive psychology of single life. In D. S. Dunn Ed.
Positive Psychology: Established and Emerging Issues, pp. 251–275. Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315106304-15
26 E. KISLEV
DePaulo, B. (2023). Single and flourishing: Transcending the deficit narratives of
single life. Journal of Family Theory & Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12525
DePaulo, B., & Morris, W. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimina-
tion against singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 251–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00446.x
Dommaraju, P. (2015). One-person households in India. Demographic Research, 32,
1239–1266. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.45
Duncan, L. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group consciousness as
mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political
Psychology, 20(3), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00159
Dupre, M. E., & Meadows, S. O. (2007). Disaggregating the effects of marital
trajectories on health. Journal of Family Issues, 28(5), 623–652. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0192513X06296296
Eck, B. A. (2013). Identity twists and turns: How never-married men make sense of
an unanticipated identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(1), 31–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241612457045
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.
53.100901.135228
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment (Vol. 14). Sage
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220574
Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic
Interaction, 18(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1995.18.2.121
Ermer, A. E., & Keenoy, J. E. (2023). Singlehood during later life: Theoretical
considerations for health and social relationships. Journal of Family Theory &
Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12524
EuroStat. (2021). Distribution of Households by Household Type from 2003 Onwards ‐
EU‐SILC Survey. http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/vq4g2a9iwej8esr1mg
Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2010). Identity, minority stress and
psychological well-being among gay men and lesbians. Psychology and Sexuality, 1
(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2010.484592
Fink, P. J. (1992). Stigma and mental illness. American Psychiatric Pub.
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of
marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry,
25(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.863723
Fisher, A. N., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2020). Are single people a stigmatized ‘group’?
Evidence from examinations of social identity, entitativity, and perceived respon-
sibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103844. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jesp.2019.103844
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Frable, D. E. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review
of Psychology, 48(1), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.139
Frazier, P., Arikian, N., Benson, S., Losoff, A., & Maurer, S. (1996). Desire for
marriage and life satisfaction among unmarried heterosexual adults. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407596132004
Fry, R., & Parker, K. (2021). Rising Share of U.S. Adults are Living without a Spouse or
Partner. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/
10/05/rising-share-of-u-s-adults-are-living-without-a-spouse-or-partner/#fn-
31655-2
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 27
Galatzer-Levy, R., & Cohler, B. J. (2019). Making a gay identity: Coming out, social
context, and psychodynamics. In The annual of psychoanalysis: Rethinking psycho-
analysis and the homosexualities (pp. 255–286). Routledge.
[Record #18 is using a reference type undefined in this output style.]
Gargan, L. (1986). Stereotypes of singles: A cross-cultural comparison. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology, 27(3), 200. https://doi.org/10.1163/
156854286X00159
Giamo, L. S., Schmitt, M. T., & Outten, H. R. (2012). Perceived discrimination, group
identification, and life satisfaction among multiracial people: A test of the
rejection-identification model. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 18(4), 319. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029729
Girme, Y. U., Park, Y., & MacDonald, G. (2022). Coping or Thriving? Reviewing
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal factors associated with well-being in
singlehood from a within-group perspective. Perspectives on Psychological
Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 174569162211361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221136119
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor.
Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on
the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136639
Gubrium, J. F. (1975). Being single in old age. The International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 6(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2190/31LW-101Q-0PWX-VV9J
Guilmoto, C., & de Loenzien, M. (2015). Emerging, transitory or residual?
One-person households in Viet Nam. Demographic Research, S15(42),
1147–1176. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.42
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social
categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/
10.1348/014466600164363
Héliot, Y., Gleibs, I. H., Coyle, A., Rousseau, D. M., & Rojon, C. (2020). Religious
identity in the workplace: A systematic review, research agenda, and practical
implications. Human Resource Management, 59(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.
1002/hrm.21983
Hill Roy, L., Park, Y., & MacDonald, G. (2022). Age moderates the link between
relationship desire and life satisfaction among singles. Personal Relationships.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12497
Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two
theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1519843
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relation-
ships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2),
271–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783316662718
Hogan, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2020). Personality theory and the nature of human
nature. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2019.109561
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity
perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10463280701592070
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory:
A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
28 E. KISLEV
Hornung, J., Bandelow, N. C., & Vogeler, C. S. (2019). Social identities in the policy
process. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9340-6
Hostetler, A. J. (2009). Single by choice? Assessing and understanding voluntary
singlehood among mature gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(4), 499–531.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360902821486
Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26
(1), 367–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.367
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social
identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-
895X.00230
Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002214650905000307
Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity.
Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American
Political Science Review, 75(4), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962290
Jadva, V., Badger, S., Morrissette, M., & Golombok, S. (2009). ‘Mom by choice, single
by life’s circumstance . . . ’Findings from a large scale survey of the experiences of
single mothers by choice. Human Fertility, 12(4), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.
3109/14647270903373867
Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315887104
Johnson, D. R., & Wu, J. (2002). An empirical test of crisis, social selection, and role
explanations of the relationship between marital disruption and psychological dis-
tress: A pooled time‐series analysis of four‐wave panel data. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64(1), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00211.x
Keeney, J., Boyd, E. M., Sinha, R., Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). From
“work–family” to “work–life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measure-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2013.01.005
Kislev, E. (2012). Components of intercultural identity: Towards an effective inte-
gration policy. Intercultural Education, 23(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14675986.2012.699373
Kislev, E. (2014). The Effect of Minority/Majority Origins on Immigrants’
Integration. Social Forces, 92(4), 1457–1486. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou016
Kislev, E. (2017). New trends and patterns in western European immigration to the
United States: Linking European and American databases. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 669(1), 168–189. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0002716216682692
Kislev, E. (2018). Happiness, post-materialist values, and the unmarried. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(8), 2243–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9921-7
Kislev, E. (2019). Happy singlehood: The rising acceptance and celebration of solo
living. University of California Press.
Kislev, E. (2020a). Does marriage really improve sexual satisfaction? Evidence from
the pairfam data set. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(4), 470–481. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00224499.2019.1608146
Kislev, E. (2020b). How do relationship desire and sociability relate to each other
among singles? Longitudinal analysis of the Pairfam survey. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 37(8–9), 2634–2650. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407520933000
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 29
Kislev, E. (2020c). Social capital, happiness, and the unmarried: A Multilevel Analysis
of 32 European Countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(5), 1475–1492.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09751-y
Kislev, E. (2021a). Reduced relationship desire is associated with better life satisfac-
tion for singles in Germany: An analysis of pairfam data. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 38(7), 2073–2083. https://doi.org/10.1177/
02654075211005024
Kislev, E. (2021b). The sexual activity and sexual satisfaction of singles in the second
demographic transition. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(3), 726–738.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00496-0
Kislev, E. (2022a). Relationships 5.0: How AI, VR, and Robots Will Reshape Our
Emotional Lives. Oxford University Press US. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/
9780197588253.001.0001
Kislev, E. (2022b). Aging, Marital Status, and Loneliness: Multilevel Analyses of 30
Countries. Research on Ageing and Social Policy, 10(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.
17583/rasp.8923
Kislev, E. (2022c). Relationship desire and life satisfaction among never-married and
divorced men and women. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14681994.2022.2099538
Kislev, E. (2022d). Relationship-Status and Work-Life Balance Satisfaction:
Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses. Applied Research in Quality of Life,
18(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10137-w
Kislev, E. (forthcoming). Singles in the Workplace: Benefits and Challenges. In
C. Wynne & K. Chowkhani (Eds.), Singles Studies Collection. Routledge.
Kislev, E., & Marsh, K. (2023). Intersectionality in studying and theorizing
singlehood. Journal of Family Theory & Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12522
Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of
living alone. Penguin.
La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships,
and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp3401_5
Lahad, L. (2017). A Table for One: A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time.
http://www.oapen.org/record/635870
Lavender‐Stott, E. S. (2023). Queering singlehood: Examining the intersection of
sexuality and relationship status from a queer lens. Journal of Family Theory &
Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12521
Lehmann, V., Tuinman, M. A., Braeken, J., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., Sanderman, R., &
Hagedoorn, M. (2015). Satisfaction with relationship status: Development of a new
scale and the role in predicting well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1),
169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9503-x
Lindqvist, A., Sendén, M. G., & Renström, E. A. (2021). What is gender, anyway:
A review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychology and Sexuality, 12
(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844
Long, B. L. (2016a). Stigmatized identities: Choice, accessibility, and authenticity. In
J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and practice (pp.
539–568). Oxford University Press.
Long, B. L. (2016b). Stigmatized identities: Choice, accessibility, and authenticity. In
J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and research (pp.
539–568). Oxford University Press.
30 E. KISLEV
Luke, N., & Poulin, M. (2023). Sex and single women in midlife: Theoretical
perspectives, recent findings, and future directions. Journal of Family Theory &
Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12518
MacDonald, G., & Park, Y. (2022). Associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety
with life satisfaction, satisfaction with singlehood, and desire for a romantic partner.
Personal Relationships, 29(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12416
Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of
attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In Advances in
experimental social psychology volume 34 (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). Elsevier. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80007-7
Mandujano-Salazar, Y. Y. (2019). Exploring the construction of adulthood and
gender identity among single childfree people in Mexico and Japan. SAGE Open,
9(2), 215824401985584. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019855844
Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making:
A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21(1), 31–44. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2526238
Marcussen, K., & Asencio, E. K. (2016). Stigma resistance and the mental illness self-
view. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and
research (pp. 473–508). Oxford University Press.
Marsh, K. (2023). The Love Jones Cohort: Single and Living Alone in the Black Middle
Class. Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, K., Darity, W. A., Jr., Cohen, P. N., Casper, L. M., & Salters, D. (2007). The
emerging Black middle class: Single and living alone. Social Forces, 86(2), 735–762.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/86.2.735
Maslow, A. H., Frager, R., Fadiman, J., McReynolds, C., & Cox, R. (1970). Motivation
and personality (Vol. 2). Harper & Row New York.
Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence on
selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(4), 901–911.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353171
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of
Personality, 63(3), 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002).
Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’
college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.896
Moore, J. A., & Radtke, H. L. (2015). Starting “real” life: Women negotiating
a successful midlife single identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3),
305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315573244
Moorman, J. D. (2020). Socializing singlehood: Personal, interpersonal, and socio-
cultural factors shaping black women’s single lives. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 44(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320939070
Morris, W. L. (2005). The effect of stigma awareness on the self-esteem of singles.
University of Virginia].
Morris, W., DePaulo, B., Hertel, J., & Taylor, L. C. (2008). Singlism—Another
problem that has no name: Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination against
singles.
Mortelmans, D., Claessens, E., & Thielemans, G. (2023). Defining and measuring
singlehood in family studies. Journal of Family Theory & Review. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jftr.12520
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 31
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with
negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative depriva-
tion theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229
Nagoshi, J. L., & Brzuzy, S. I. (2010). Transgender theory: Embodying research and
practice. Affilia, 25(4), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910384068
Nakosteen, R. A., & Zimmer, M. A. (1987). Marital status and earnings of young
men: A model with endogenous selection. The Journal of Human Resources, 22(2),
248–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/145904
Ochnik, D. (2012). Znaczenie i problemy definicyjne pojęcia „singiel”
w naukach społecznych/The Conceptual and Definition Problems of the
‘Single’Notion in the Social Science. Psychological Studies, 50(1), 63–74.
Ochnik, D., & Slonim, G. (2020). Satisfaction with singlehood in never-married
singles: The role of gender and culture. The Open Psychology Journal, 13(1),
17–26. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350102013010017
Park, H., & Choi, J. (2015). Long-term trends in living alone among Korean adults:
Age, gender, and educational differences. Demographic Research, S15(43),
1177–1208. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.43
Park, Y., Impett, E. A., & MacDonald, G. (2021). Singles’ sexual satisfaction is
associated with more satisfaction with singlehood and less interest in marriage.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167220942361
Park, Y., & MacDonald, G. (2023). Necessities and luxuries in satisfying single lives.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(3), 937–954. https://doi.org/10.
1177/02654075221122887
Park, Y., MacDonald, G., & Impett, E. A. (2022). Partnership status and satisfaction
with work–life balance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
32(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2104717
Park, Y., MacDonald, G., Impett, E. A., & Neel, R. (2023). What social lives do single
people want? A person-centered approach to identifying profiles of social motives
among singles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(1), 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000455
Park, Y., Page-Gould, E., & MacDonald, G. (2022). Satisfying singlehood as
a function of age and cohort: Satisfaction with being single increases with age
after midlife. Psychology and Aging, 37(5), 626–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pag0000695
Pearlin, L. I., & Johnson, J. S. (1977). Marital status, life-strains and depression.
American Sociological Review, 42(5), 704–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094860
Pepping, C. A., & MacDonald, G. (2019). Adult attachment and long-term
singlehood. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.copsyc.2018.04.006
Pepping, C. A., MacDonald, G., & Davis, P. J. (2018). Toward a psychology of
singlehood: An attachment-theory perspective on long-term singlehood. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963721417752106
Podhisita, C., & Xenos, P. (2015). Living alone in South and Southeast Asia: An
analysis of census data. Demographic Research, S15(41), 1113–1146. https://doi.
org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.41
32 E. KISLEV
Porter, E., & Chambless, D. L. (2014). Shying away from a good thing: Social anxiety
in romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(6), 546–561. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22048
Power, C., Rodgers, B., & Hope, S. (1999). Heavy alcohol consumption and marital
status: Disentangling the relationship in a national study of young adults.
Addiction, 94(10), 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.
941014774.x
Pudrovska, T., Schieman, S., & Carr, D. (2006). Strains of singlehood in later life: Do
Race and Gender Matter? The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(6), S315–S322. Journals of Gerontology: Series B.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.6.S315
Quinn, D. M. (2006). Concealable versus conspicuous stigmatized identities. In S.,
Levin, C. V, Laar. Stigma and group inequality (pp. 97–118). Psychology Press.
Quinn, D. M., & Earnshaw, V. A. (2013). Concealable stigmatized identities and
psychological well‐being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(1), 40–51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12005
Raine, L., & Wellman, B. 2012. Networked. In The new social operating system.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8358.
001.0001
Ramarajan, L. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities:
Toward an intrapersonal network approach. Academy of Management Annals, 8
(1), 589–659. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.912379
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindi-
viduation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049
Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., & Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and chance: Negotiating
agency in narratives of singleness. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 331–351. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00708.x
Ruberg, B., & Ruelos, S. (2020). Data for queer lives: How LGBTQ gender and
sexuality identities challenge norms of demographics. Big Data & Society, 7(1),
2053951720933286. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720933286
Sbarra, D. A., & Nietert, P. J. (2009). Divorce and Death Forty Years of the
Charleston Heart Study. Psychological Science, 20(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02252.x
Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, O. (2008). Attachment style and long‐term
singlehood. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2008.00211.x
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social identity theory. In Social psychology in
action (pp. 129–143). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-13788-5_9
Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167203261885
Sharp, E. A., & Ganong, L. (2011). “I’m a Loser, I’m Not Married, Let’s Just All Look
at Me”: Ever-Single Women’s Perceptions of Their Social Environment. Journal of
Family Issues, 32(7), 956–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10392537
Sherif, C. W. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of gender identity. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 6(4), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1982.
tb01067.x
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 33
Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5),
301–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
Slonim, G., Gur-Yaish, N., & Katz, R. (2015). By Choice or by Circumstance?:
Stereotypes of and Feelings About Single People. Studia Psychologica, 57(1),
35–48. https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2015.01.672
Slonim, G., & Schütz, A. (2015). Singles by choice differ from singles by circumstance
in their perceptions of the costs and benefits of romantic relationships.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The
benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 21(2), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411434979
Speckhard, A., Ellenberg, M., Morton, J., & Ash, A. (2021). Involuntary celibates’
experiences of and grievance over sexual exclusion and the potential threat of
violence among those active in an online incel forum. Journal of Strategic Security,
14(2), 89–121. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.14.2.1910
Stein, P. (1975). Singlehood: An alternative to marriage. The Family Coordinator, 24
(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.2307/583033
Stein, P. (1978). The lifestyles and life chances of the never-married. Marriage &
Family Review, 1(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v01n04_01
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science
Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
In Political Psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
Tessler, H. (2023). The stability of singlehood: Limitations of the relationship status
paradigm and a new theoretical framework for reimagining singlehood. Journal of
Family Theory & Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12506
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and
mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022146510395592
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., Becker, J. C.,
Becker, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Choi, H.-S. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social
behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), 7521–7526. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1713191115
Thumma, S. (1991). Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay evangelical.
Sociological Analysis, 52(4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/3710850
Timonen, V., & Doyle, M. (2014). Life-long singlehood: Intersections of the past and
the present. Ageing & Society, 34(10), 1749–1770. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0144686X13000500
Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (2014). Social identity, personality, and the self-
concept: A self-categorization perspective. In Tom, R. T., Roderick, M. K., Oliver,
P. J. The psychology of the social self (pp. 19–54). Psychology Press.
Úmweltbùndesamt. (2022). Bevölkerungsentwicklung und Struktur privater
Haushalte. German Federal Statistical Office - Statistisches Bundesamt.
Valentine, G. (1993). Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: Lesbian
time-space strategies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(2),
237–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/622365
Wade, T. J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2004). Marital transitions and mental health. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 45(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002214650404500203
34 E. KISLEV
Waite, S., Ecker, J., Ross, L. E., & Federici, S. (2019). A systematic review and
thematic synthesis of Canada’s LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market and earn-
ings literature. PLoS ONE, 14(10), e0223372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0223372
Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L. (1996). Marriage protection and marriage
selection—Prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health.
Social Science & Medicine, 43(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)
00347-9
Walsh, L. C., Gonzales, A. M., Shen, L., Rodriguez, A., & Kaufman, V. A. (2022).
Expanding relationship science to unpartnered singles: What predicts life
satisfaction? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 904848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2022.904848
Wellman, B. (2012). Networked individualism: How the personalized internet, ubi-
quitous connectivity, and the turn to social networks can affect learning analytics.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and
Knowledge, New York.
Wynne, C., & Chowkhani, K. (Eds.). (2022). Singles Studies Collection. Routledge.
Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2020). Psychological consequences of relational mobility.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.
2019.07.029
Yzerbyt, V. E., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. E., Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M., Corneille, O.
(2004). The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and
essentialism. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203644973
Zhang, C. (2020). “Leftover? I am a victorious woman!”- the potential for the
emergence of a new womanhood. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 26(1),
36–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2020.1718867
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 35
