A More Inclusive Perspective on Singlehood

Co-authored with Yoobin Park, Ph.D., and Geoff MacDonald, Ph.D.

As the number of single adults in society increases, a more positive understanding of singlehood has been taking hold, much of which has been grounded in the pioneering advocacy of researcher, author, and PT contributor, Dr. Bella DePaulo. Yet, many single people also find singlehood challenging. In an attempt to document the diverse lives of singles, we recently reviewed the growing body of research focusing on when singles struggle and when singles thrive. Given that we were all inspired to research singlehood in part by DePaulo’s work, we were very interested in reading her take on our review. In this article, we discuss the importance of contextualizing happy single lives within the higher average happiness levels of coupled people, the normal and valid struggles that many single people do have, and the structural challenges of prioritizing independence that may often accompany singlehood.

There’s an Average Difference in the Well-Being of Single and Coupled People

Something we found in our review is that, on average, coupled people tend to be happier and more satisfied with life compared to single people.

DePaulo was concerned with our discussion about this difference in well-being, suggesting that we “seem to want to endorse those claims.” She is right here, because all three of us independently examined the literature comparing well-being outcomes for single and coupled individuals, and all came to the conclusion that the average effect is clear and consistent: individuals in romantic relationships are, on average, higher on most well-being indicators than single individuals.

We don’t endorse any particular explanation for why singles, on average, experience lower well-being. In our review, we cast doubt on the idea that getting into a romantic relationship increases happiness over the long-term, given that people often return to baseline happiness levels some time after partnering. We think there are likely many causes for the difference in well-being, including the discrimination that single people face and that happier people appear more likely to start relationships.

The existence of a well-being difference between single and coupled people does not, and should not, negate or invalidate the existence of sizable numbers of happy single people. In fact, the aim of our review was to explore the variation among singles, which is as important as comparisons between single and coupled people. But attempting to understand why single people may experience challenges strikes us as an important step for creating productive pathways toward addressing this well-being difference.

Experiences of Singlehood That Are Not Uniformly Positive Are Common and Valid

One part of DePaulo’s critique that drew our attention was her discussion of a “deficit narrative”.

She writes, “…we are told, for example, that long-term singles may be people who start out wanting a partner, and they pursue that goal, but that doesn’t happen so they adjust to ‘what is perceived as an unchangeable situation.’ That’s a deficit narrative. They didn’t get what they wanted, so they settled for their single life. I don’t doubt that this process is characteristic of some singles, but it is not a great example of thriving.”

In essence, DePaulo frames positive and challenging singlehood experiences as an either/or, suggesting that, in lieu of focusing on singles who knew from the outset they wanted to be single, we focused on singles whose lives she considers as containing a “deficit” component.

Perhaps there’s a concern that by not exclusively focusing on single people who, by her definition, are thriving, our work could perpetuate negative stereotypes about singles. But as singlehood scholars, we are concerned that if we were to deprioritize the experiences of singles who have struggled, we risk reinforcing the idea that there is something wrong with these singles (i.e., their story is a “deficit narrative”). Although focusing discussions exclusively on singles who have never wanted partnership might be de-stigmatizing for that group of singles, labelling only that group as “thriving” serves to re-stigmatize unhappy singles. We do not want to send the message that only happy single lives are valid or that the experience of wanting and not having romantic partnership is somehow problematic.

We’re uncomfortable with the use of the term “deficit narrative” in this case. The process we discuss is the common psychological mechanism of “secondary control,” whereby individuals adjust to unchangeable situations by reframing their understanding of their situation and adjusting to it. With singles, such cases will include widows/widowers, divorcees, single/solo parents, and marginalized individuals who may be single involuntarily, struggle with finding romantic opportunities, and have to navigate a difficult singlehood life. We don’t want to label the processes of growth, change, and adjustment in those situations “deficit narratives” unworthy of inclusion alongside more stable stories of desire for singlehood.

Who Are the “Single at Heart”?

A central theme of DePaulo’s critique was that our paper did not devote sufficient attention to individuals she refers to as “single at heart.”

She defines “singles at heart” as, “people who love single life for all it has to offer, and who are not just uninterested in romantic relationships or avoiding those relationships.” She describes these individuals as those who are most likely to thrive in singlehood and embrace freedom, savoring solitude, investing in singlehood, and defining intimacy on their own terms. "It is the boldest, most unambivalent, and most unapologetic of all the terms I will introduce,” she wrote in 2021.

This is a wonderful portrait, and there may well be many single people who see themselves in this description. But academically, there’s an absence of peer-reviewed, empirical evidence pointing to a “single at heart” group.

Our review did focus on several empirically supported factors associated with thriving in singlehood beyond the lack of desire for romantic partnership, including secure attachment towards close others, having strong ties with friends and family, meeting sexual needs, and endorsing values that prioritize individual needs. We also explicitly noted that “singles appear to see dating and romance as one of their lowest priorities, whereas top priorities include relationships with family and health.” We called for future research to focus on the unique advantages that singlehood may offer, such as investing in single life, personal growth and meaning, and fulfillment of autonomy, competence, meaning, and richness in life.

Singlehood Essential Reads

Teens Agree on What's Most (and Least) Important

Why Being Single Means More Than You Ever Realized

DePaulo cautions scholars against comparing singlehood to an idealized version of romantic relationship life. We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but would add that we caution against creating an idealized picture of singlehood and using that as the basis to evaluate single life. A science of singlehood that ignores documented situational loneliness and health challenges would be akin to a science of romantic relationships that ignores conflict and infidelity.

One challenge all people have to contend with is balancing the desire for independence with connection to others. DePaulo notes that the “single at heart” prioritize their freedom and solitude. That’s fair enough, but taken too far, these values have the potential to lead to trouble. For example, research by Park, MacDonald, and colleagues shows that among singles, a strong pursuit of independence often co-exists with little interest in social connection (romantic or otherwise), a pattern that is associated with high satisfaction with being single, but not necessarily satisfaction with life overall. Park et al. identified those with the highest independence motivation as being higher in attachment avoidance, a variable associated with social withdrawal, something DePaulo’s critique does not address.

There are surely singles who eschew romantic partnerships but maintain healthy social networks, but research shows that too much emphasis placed on social independence may come at the risk of a lack of social connection in general. We’re interested in both the risks and benefits of prioritizing independence, and more importantly, what balance leads to a happy life.

Conclusion

Happy singlehood is more common than most people probably realize. Our review of the literature supports the importance, dignity, and joys of single living. It also recognizes the various struggles that are part of the lives of most singles. We feel this approach best communicates that the experiences of all single people are valid. Only by remembering that single lives, like all lives, afford powerful opportunities and challenges, can the new science of singlehood identify how people can cultivate the happiest version of their lives—with or without a partner.

___

A preprint of our newest article is available here: https://psyarxiv.com/yvrax/