Singlehood as an Identity
Why do some single people feel depleted, while others feel good about it?
Updated March 12, 2026 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods
Singlehood has long been treated as a relationship status: a box you check until you’re in a different box. In research and in everyday conversation, that framing quietly sets couplehood as the default endpoint and casts single life as a transitional phase. But for some adults today, singlehood is not just a status. It can operate as an identity, an organizing idea that carries meaning, guides choices, and shapes how a person understands their place in the social world.
In a review article titled " Singlehood as an identity" , I argue that singlehood is increasingly experienced as a social category in itself and that psychology needs better tools to capture that reality. This notion helps explain a familiar puzzle: why some single people feel depleted or marginalized, while others feel grounded, socially connected, and even energized. If singlehood is merely a status, we tend to ask blunt questions like “Are singles happier than partnered people?” But if singlehood can be an identity, then the more useful question becomes: What does singlehood mean to this person, and how central is it to their sense of self?
“Single” can be a description, but it can also be a story. As a description, it answers a demographic question. As a story, it can carry meaning: I’m behind / I’m not chosen, or I’m free / I’m open, but not waiting. Two people can share the same relationship status and yet live singlehood as entirely different psychological experiences.
In particular, the singlehood-as-identity framework proposes three broad identity positions: counter-normative, peripheral, and core. They are not moral labels or fixed boxes people must fit into forever. They are a map for understanding how singlehood shows up in the self-concept and in social life .
When singlehood is experienced as counter-normative, the person is not only aware of being single. They feel that being single is socially “wrong,” disallowed, or judged. This experience often intensifies when people want partnership but feel pressured by timelines, family expectations, or cultural scripts. It can also appear when someone is content with their single life but anticipates stigma anyway, because the social environment is organized around couplehood as the unquestioned norm.
This is where singlism—the stereotyping and discrimination directed at singles—stops being an abstract concept and becomes an everyday stressor. A classic piece on the topic is " The Unrecognized Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Singles ". Even subtle forms of singlism can matter: assumptions about maturity, warmth, or “why you’re still single,” and policies that quietly treat coupled life as the baseline.
When singlehood is a peripheral identity, it matters, but it does not define the person. It can be positive, negative, or mixed. Someone might enjoy their life and still be open to partnership later. Another person might feel frustrated and still interpret it as a temporary season. Singlehood affects routines and choices, but it remains relatively flexible, something that can change without threatening the integrity of the self.
When singlehood becomes a core identity, it looks less like “I’m single right now” and more like “I’m a single person.” Here, singlehood is experienced as deeply congruent with authenticity , priorities, and life design. This does not require an essentialist claim that singlehood is biologically fixed. It simply recognizes that, for some people, couplehood is not the default aspiration, and singlehood is not a waiting room.
Why identity changes the well-being conversation
Identity helps explain why findings about singlehood and well-being can look inconsistent. If a study averages together people who are living singlehood as counter-normative (high pressure, high stigma), people for whom it is peripheral (flexible and context-dependent), and people for whom it is core (authentic and self-defining), then a single “singles vs. couples” comparison cannot capture what’s really going on.
A major review that makes this within-group pivot explicit is " Coping or Thriving? Reviewing factors associated with well-being in singlehood ". The key move is not to treat singlehood as a uniform condition, but to ask which intrapersonal resources, relational contexts, and societal conditions are linked to thriving for different kinds of singles.
What to ask instead of “Why are you still single?”
If you’re a clinician, educator, or simply someone who cares about a single person, the identity lens suggests a small but powerful change. Before you interpret distress (or contentment) as “because they are single,” ask what singlehood means in their identity ecosystem. Does singlehood feel stigmatized or legitimate? Is it central or incidental? Is there a mismatch between what they want and what they have, or between what they value and what their environment rewards? Are they lonely , or socially connected but culturally pressured? Are they grieving a desired partnership, or building a life design that doesn’t center on couplehood?
These questions reduce the risk of pathologizing singlehood itself. They also make space for more tailored support: strengthening belonging, challenging internalized norms, building community, clarifying values, or (when someone truly wants partnership) pursuing it without shame -driven urgency and even from a place of a happy singlehood .
Indeed, singlehood-as-identity doesn’t claim that being single is always easy or always empowering, and it certainly doesn’t imply that wanting partnership is misguided. It makes a simpler, more humane point: being single is not a single psychological experience. When we ask what singlehood means, rather than assuming what it means, we stop debating singlehood in the abstract and start understanding single lives as they actually are.
Facebook image: GaudiLab/Shutterstock
DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2006). T he unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 251–254.
Fisher, A. N., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2019). Are single people a stigmatized “group”? Evidence from examinations of social identity, entitativity, and perceived responsibility . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82 , 208–216.
Girme, Y. U., Park, Y., & MacDonald, G. (2023). Coping or thriving? Reviewing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal factors associated with well-being in singlehood from a within-group perspective . Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18 (5), 1097–1120.
Kislev, E. (2019). Happy singlehood: The rising acceptance and celebration of solo living . University of California Press.
Kislev, E. (2024). Singlehood as an identity . European Review of Social Psychology, 35 (2), 258–292.
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Elyakim Kislev, Ph.D. , is a faculty member at the Hebrew University and the author of Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.