Reclassification of Singlehood: An Exploration from Dual Perspectives of Individual Motivation and Social Identity

KONG Fancong¹, SUN Xinlong¹, JIN Yuchang¹, ZHU Hongjin²
(¹ College of Psychology, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610066, China)
(² School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China)

Abstract: Singlehood has become increasingly prevalent in modern society, yet academic research continues to operate largely on a homogeneous assumption, neglecting differences in motivational sources and identity recognition among single individuals. This oversight limits our ability to capture the psychological heterogeneity and dynamic nature of singlehood. To address this gap, the present study integrates Self-Determination Theory and Social Identity Theory to propose a two-dimensional classification model—the "Autonomy × Social Identity" framework—that categorizes single individuals into autonomous, identity-based, passive, and adaptive types. Building on this model, the study further examines their psychological profiles, social behaviors, and potential transformation pathways. This framework not only provides a new theoretical perspective for understanding singlehood but also offers an operable framework for future empirical research and practical application.

Keywords: singlehood, autonomy, social identity, two-dimensional classification model of singlehood

1 Introduction

With socio-economic development and evolving cultural values, traditional marriage norms face unprecedented challenges, making singlehood a significant social phenomenon. People are entering romantic relationships later in life \cite{Girme et al., 2023; Kislev, 2023}, divorce rates continue to rise \cite{Schoen & Canudas-Romo, 2006}, single-parent households increase \cite{Heuveline et al., 2003}, and the number of individuals living alone grows steadily \cite{侯佳雯 等, 2024; DePaulo, 2023; Kislev, 2019}. In China, the proportion of single adults rose from less than 5% in 2000 to over 10% in 2020, reaching nearly 12% by 2023, with a sustained upward trend \cite{国家统计局, 2023}.

Despite its growing prevalence, academic research has largely associated singlehood with negative psychological states. Many studies treat singlehood as a "relationship-deficient" status, comparing singles to married individuals on life satisfaction, happiness, and health \cite{Luhmann et al., 2012; Purol et al., 2020}, often finding singles at a disadvantage \cite{Girme et al., 2023; Watkins et al., 2024}. This approach reinforces stereotypes equating singlehood with loneliness and unhappiness \cite{Adamczyk, 2017; Himawan et al., 2017, 2018} while overlooking within-group differences \cite{Bergström & Brée, 2023; Kislev, 2023}. For instance, partnered individuals often represent those satisfied with their current relationships, while some singles (e.g., divorced individuals) may be in relationship recovery stages—differences that can introduce bias in comparisons \cite{Bergström & Brée, 2023}.

In reality, singlehood is not a homogeneous life state. Some individuals experience passive singlehood due to breakups, divorce, or other factors, while a substantial proportion actively choose and maintain singlehood despite having the capacity to form intimate relationships. These voluntary singles often exhibit high autonomy and stable life satisfaction \cite{Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015a; Kislev, 2019}. German Pairfam data, for example, show that 23% of singles aged 18+ explicitly state they "do not desire a partner," with this proportion remaining at 9-13% even among those aged 30 and above \cite{Brüderl et al., 2019}, reflecting clear value orientations and identity foundations underlying some individuals' singlehood choices.

Meanwhile, the social structure of intimate relationships is rapidly evolving. Diverse relationship models such as non-marital cohabitation, short-term relationships, and open relationships continue to emerge, challenging traditional definitions of singlehood based solely on marital/relationship status \cite{Lehmann et al., 2015; Pepping et al., 2018, 2025}. This not only complicates classification logic but also limits deeper understanding of different singles' psychological states and social interactions \cite{Crocetti et al., 2023}. Therefore, a more nuanced approach to categorizing single individuals is needed to explore the psychological motivations behind choosing singlehood and the mechanisms of social identity construction.

To address this dual theoretical and practical challenge, this paper integrates Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) to propose a two-dimensional classification model from the perspectives of "motivational autonomy" and "social identity." This model examines both the level of intrinsic motivation for choosing singlehood and individuals' social cognition and sense of belonging regarding their "single identity." The study constructs four singlehood types and explores their psychological and behavioral characteristics and dynamic transformation mechanisms. This model helps break through traditional paradigms that view singlehood as homogeneous and static, providing a more systematic, dynamic, and pluralistic theoretical framework for understanding contemporary singlehood.

2.1 Foreign Research Perspectives on Singlehood Classification

Foreign research on singlehood classification began relatively early, yielding various models. Stein (1978) pioneered a framework crossing "voluntary/involuntary" and "temporary/stable" dimensions, covering types such as actively chosen celibacy, temporary unmarried status, and passive singlehood due to objective factors. This framework emphasized differences in intention behind singlehood status and provided important insights.

Subsequently, attachment theory became a key approach to understanding psychological differences among singles. Pepping et al. (2018, 2025) classified singles into four categories based on adult attachment dimensions—avoidance and anxiety: secure, anxious, avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. This classification reveals how different attachment styles shape attitudes toward intimate relationships and emotional responses, predicting satisfaction and adjustment in singlehood.

To expand social motivation explanations, Park et al. (2023) proposed three singlehood types based on social motivation theory: independence-focused singles (emphasizing self-actualization), social-focus singles (concerned with external evaluation), and low-security-focus singles (lacking security). This model effectively distinguishes individual differences in social strategies and relationship needs.

Additionally, Kislev (2023) proposed understanding singlehood as a social identity, dividing it into stigmatized, marginal, and core identity singles, emphasizing how sociocultural factors shape self-positioning and expanding the socio-psychological perspective on singlehood.

2.2 Domestic Research on Singlehood Phenomena and Social Labels

Compared to systematic theoretical construction abroad, domestic scholarship focuses more on the realistic characteristics of singlehood, attitudes toward marriage, and social reactions. Existing research primarily describes trends in marriage and dating against social transformation backgrounds, late marriage and childbearing, and the solo-living economy, concentrating on changes in social structure and relationship values \cite{何雨, 2023; 侯佳雯 等, 2024; 李婷, 郑叶昕, 2023}.

A few studies attempt preliminary typologies. For instance, Chen (2023) categorized single women into transitional/lifelong singles, living-alone/cohabiting singles, and active/passive singles based on temporal, spatial, and value dimensions. This classification helps reveal the diversity of Chinese women's singlehood experiences but relies primarily on behavioral states and social roles, lacking systematic exploration of individual psychological mechanisms.

Moreover, in Chinese internet discourse and popular culture, labels such as "empty-nest youth," "born single," "non-marriage advocates," "Buddhist-style singles," "economic singles," and "leftover men/women" frequently appear. Though not systematic academic concepts, these labels reflect public intuitive understanding of singlehood states and psychological characteristics, providing potential clues for constructing singlehood typologies.

2.3 Limitations of Classification Research and Theoretical Constraints

Despite growing classification research, overall limitations remain (see Table 1 [TABLE:1]). First, the voluntary-involuntary classification represented by Stein (1978), while emphasizing intention differences, remains at the level of narrative choice with vague motivational expressions, failing to reveal how individuals identify with and position their singlehood in social contexts \cite{Kislev, 2023}. Second, although attachment styles can explain differences in relationship orientation \cite{Pepping et al., 2018}, their explanatory power for adult singlehood is limited. Research shows attachment is more malleable in early life, while adult singlehood is more influenced by social contexts and choice factors \cite{Fraley & Roisman, 2019}. Furthermore, recent social motivation and identity perspectives \cite{Kislev, 2023; Park et al., 2023} have limitations: motivation perspectives emphasize causes of singlehood but cannot reveal how motivations evolve over time and experience; identity perspectives can explain how singles construct meaning and achieve stability in social contexts but cannot account for heterogeneity in singlehood choices under different motivations. In other words, each provides independent entry points but lacks systematic integration.

Therefore, existing classification frameworks, while revealing differences among singles, cannot simultaneously answer two core questions: why singlehood forms (its motivational mechanisms) and how it evolves (dynamic changes in social contexts and psychological processes). This limitation not only restricts comprehensive understanding of heterogeneity in singlehood but also weakens explanatory power regarding developmental trajectories and potential transformation pathways. Against this backdrop, this study's motivation × identity dual-dimension model aims to compensate for previous frameworks' deficiencies, providing a more integrated theoretical framework for understanding the heterogeneity and dynamism of singlehood.

3.1 Self-Determination Theory: The Intrinsic Dimension of Singlehood Motivation

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that individuals have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness \cite{Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2006}. Among these, autonomy is the experience of choosing and acting from one's own will rather than being driven by external pressure. Compared to competence and relatedness, autonomy plays a more critical role in explaining individuals' sustained commitment to behaviors. Even when other needs are satisfied, lacking autonomy often prevents individuals from maintaining positive motivation and vitality \cite{Nix et al., 1999}. Therefore, in contexts of intimate relationships and singlehood, autonomy becomes the core psychological mechanism distinguishing active choice from passive circumstances, revealing motivational differences behind singlehood status rather than merely external situational outcomes \cite{Deci & Ryan, 2014}.

More importantly, autonomy is closely related to the internalization process of identity. SDT suggests that when individuals choose and maintain a life state autonomously, they more easily integrate this choice into their self-system, forming a stable identity \cite{Deci & Ryan, 2000}. In singlehood contexts, high autonomy means individuals can view singlehood as part of their self-value and maintain more stable psychological states when facing social norm pressures. Conversely, low-autonomy singlehood often lacks this self-congruence, making individuals more susceptible to external expectations and exhibiting uncertainty and vacillation about singlehood. Research also shows that actively choosing singlehood is associated with higher happiness and life satisfaction, while passive singlehood often accompanies stronger anxiety and stress \cite{Adamczyk, 2017; Spielmann et al., 2020}. However, SDT's limitation lies in revealing why some can maintain singlehood long-term but failing to explain how these motivations generate and evolve in social contexts.

3.2 Social Identity Theory: The Extrinsic Dimension of Singlehood Identity

Social Identity Theory (SIT) emphasizes that individuals' self-concept derives not only from personal attributes but also from social group membership \cite{Tajfel, 1979}. In this process, individuals maintain consistency with groups through "depersonalization" and adjust behaviors through "self-verification" to maintain identity standards \cite{Burke, 1991}. Social identity is not fixed but changes with social evaluation, cultural context, and group status \cite{Turner & Onorato, 2014}. When group identity holds positive value, individuals more readily accept and strengthen that identity; otherwise, conflict and distress may arise \cite{Hogg & Smith, 2007}. Recent social identity research also emphasizes the processual construction of identity \cite{Quayle, 2025}, where individuals not only passively accept social definitions but also continuously negotiate and reshape their identity through actions, language, and symbolic behaviors \cite{Beauparlant & Machia, 2024}.

This perspective is particularly important in singlehood research. Unlike traditional voluntary/involuntary or temporary/stable distinctions, SIT reveals that singlehood is not merely a life state but a social identity \cite{Kislev, 2018, 2023}. Whether individuals identify with this identity directly affects their understanding of freedom, norms, and belonging, as well as their coping with social prejudice and pressure \cite{Moore & Radtke, 2015}. More importantly, it provides a new entry point for understanding the formation and change of autonomous motivation: positive singlehood identity can strengthen individuals' sense of autonomy, enabling them to maintain singlehood more congruently, while negative identity may weaken autonomy, leading to vacillation and distress about singlehood. Thus, SIT not only compensates for SDT's deficiency in motivation generation but also provides socio-contextual support for explaining the heterogeneity and dynamism of singlehood.

3.3 The Necessity of Theoretical Integration: A Bidirectional Process of Motivation and Identity

Given that existing classification frameworks inadequately explain the heterogeneity and dynamic evolution of singlehood, constructing a more explanatory theoretical model is essential. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes autonomy's key role in distinguishing active from passive singlehood and its psychological adaptation, revealing from a motivational perspective the psychological mechanisms behind choosing and maintaining singlehood and its impact on well-being. However, its perspective is relatively static, rarely addressing dynamic changes in motivation during social interactions. Social Identity Theory (SIT) highlights the construction and evolution of singlehood identity in social contexts, explaining how social evaluation and group belonging affect self-concept and behavior, but inadequately elaborates the intrinsic motivational basis driving identity evolution. Each theory has its focus but cannot independently answer the core questions of why individuals choose singlehood and how singlehood is continuously reshaped in social evaluation.

Therefore, integrating SDT and SIT is not only theoretically complementary but necessary for explaining the complexity of singlehood. Their complementarity offers new possibilities: SDT can reveal the intrinsic motivational basis for choosing singlehood, while SIT can explain how these motivations are constructed as stable identity through social evaluation and group relations. In other words, motivation provides psychological drive for identity construction, while identity recognition reciprocally influences the level and sustainability of autonomous motivation. Based on this bidirectional interaction, this study proposes a two-dimensional framework combining motivational autonomy (intrinsic dimension) and identity recognition (social dimension) to reveal their dynamic synergy in the formation and evolution of singlehood. This model helps systematically clarify the sources of heterogeneity, psychological adaptation differences, and potential transformation pathways among single individuals.

4 Two-Dimensional Classification Model of Singlehood

Based on the theoretical analysis above, this study constructs a two-dimensional classification model of singlehood centered on motivational autonomy and identity recognition, identifying differential combinations of motivational sources and identity recognition. As shown in Figure 1 [FIGURE:1], the model uses motivational autonomy as the vertical axis, reflecting the degree of initiative in choosing singlehood, and identity recognition as the horizontal axis, representing the level of acceptance and evaluation of the "single" social identity. The intersection of these two psychological dimensions forms four basic types: autonomous singlehood (high autonomy–high identity), adaptive singlehood (high autonomy–low identity), identity-based singlehood (high identity–low autonomy), and passive singlehood (low identity–low autonomy).

This chapter sequentially elaborates the model's two constituent dimensions and their operational definitions, analyzes the core psychological characteristics of the four singlehood types, and further compares their differences in intimate relationship attitudes, psychological states, and social behaviors in subsequent sections, providing a theoretical framework for future research.

4.1.1 Autonomy Dimension

"Motivational autonomy" refers to the intensity of intrinsic motivation and degree of subjective agency in maintaining singlehood. It extends SDT's motivational continuum framework, categorizing motivation from low autonomy (e.g., passive compliance, intimacy avoidance) to high autonomy (e.g., value-driven, self-actualization) \cite{Ryan & Deci, 2006}.

Conceptually, motivational autonomy differs from the static distinction of "voluntary/involuntary singlehood," focusing more on whether individuals view singlehood as a life choice consistent with their values and self-identity. High-autonomy singles typically maintain singlehood actively to pursue freedom, self-development, or life satisfaction; low-autonomy individuals may be in singlehood passively due to emotional trauma, social exclusion, or external pressure.

For measurement, existing research has developed relevant tools. For example, Apostolou et al. (2024) designed a scale measuring "desire for independence" to capture attitudes toward autonomous lifestyles. The scale comprises 9 items (e.g., "I wouldn't trade my independence for anything") using a 5-point Likert scale with good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.86). Park et al. (2023) proposed the Singlehood Motivation Scale (SMS), which distinguishes multiple levels of motivational regulation (e.g., "I choose to be single because it fits the life I want"), aligning with SDT's regulation types (intrinsic, identified, external). Additionally, the Regulation of Relationship Motivation Questionnaire (RRMQ) can serve as a supplementary tool for exploring motivational regulation in romantic relationships \cite{Knee et al., 2005}.

4.1.2 Identity Dimension

"Identity recognition" refers to whether individuals incorporate singlehood into their social identity and form positive or negative cognitive and emotional evaluations of that identity. This dimension originates from SIT, focusing on the identity construction process in social belonging and self-positioning \cite{Tajfel, 1979; Ellemers et al., 2002}.

Conceptually, identity recognition comprises two key dimensions: identity acceptance (whether individuals view "single" as part of their self-label) and emotional evaluation (whether they hold positive or negative attitudes toward that identity) \cite{Leach et al., 2008}. High-identity individuals actively accept singlehood as part of their self-choice, while low-identity individuals may deny this identity due to social stigma and cultural prejudice, experiencing shame and alienation \cite{Kislev, 2023}.

For measurement, Fisher and Sakaluk (2020) designed a measurement framework for singlehood identity based on Leach et al.'s (2008) multidimensional identity structure, including dimensions such as "self-definition," "group connection," and "emotional evaluation." Sample items include: "I consider 'single' an important part of my identity," "I feel proud/ashamed of being single." Such measurements help reveal psychological mechanisms between self-evaluation, group belonging, and social identity, serving as operational basis for the identity dimension.

4.2.1 Autonomous Singlehood

With changing times and modern relationship values, more people pursue the positive life state of "being alone but not lonely" \cite{侯佳雯 等, 2024; 阿尔升·海达别克 等, 2024}. Autonomous singles not only actively choose singlehood from intrinsic motivation but also hold high social identity toward this status \cite{Crocetti et al., 2023}. They view singlehood as an ideal state for achieving self-value, maintaining independence, and pursuing life quality.

Empirical research supports this group. Timonen and Doyle's (2014) interviews found some individuals firmly believed from youth they would not marry, expressing singlehood as authentic self-expression that could be maintained long-term. DePaulo (2023) conducted qualitative interviews with 41 adults self-identifying as "Single at Heart," with respondents universally valuing "freedom/autonomy" as singlehood's primary benefit and explicitly stating singlehood made them feel "most fulfilled," demonstrating high internal consistency and positive identity. Large-sample and longitudinal studies also show that actively choosing singles generally have higher life satisfaction and mental health that does not significantly decline under social pressure \cite{Kislev, 2019, 2023}. Additionally, Slonim et al. (2015) found society tends to attribute more positive traits (e.g., independence, happiness) to "choosing singles" compared to "involuntary singles," reflecting cultural environments' positive evaluation of autonomous singlehood. Crocetti et al. (2023) further note that some individuals can integrate singlehood into a stable core identity label, deriving lasting value and belonging.

Therefore, autonomous singlehood is not only a lifestyle choice based on autonomy but may constitute part of individuals' core identity, demonstrating high stability and sustainable well-being.

4.2.2 Passive Singlehood

Passive singles typically lack realistic conditions for forming intimate relationships, such as economic pressure, scarce interpersonal resources, appearance-related self-esteem issues, or social anxiety, resulting in "forced" rather than actively chosen singlehood \cite{Adamczyk, 2021; Beauparlant & Machia, 2024}. Simultaneously, they lack social identity toward this status, often holding negative evaluations and viewing singlehood as a failure, deficiency, or temporary transitional state \cite{Kislev, 2023}.

Research shows this group's psychological adaptation is fragile. Spielmann et al. (2013) found that individuals fearful of being single are more likely to rush into relationships, maintaining them even when quality is poor, thus entering unstable or draining relationships. Apostolou et al.'s (2024) survey further indicates that involuntary singlehood correlates with low achievement, low self-esteem, and poor emotional regulation, collectively undermining well-being. Slonim et al. (2015) revealed that "involuntary singles" are often socially labeled as "lonely" and "pitiful," with this stigmatization exacerbating negative experiences and hindering positive adaptation. Structural factors also reinforce their situation; for example, gender imbalances in East Asia leave some men in long-term involuntary singlehood due to insufficient marriage opportunities \cite{Raymo et al., 2015}.

In summary, passive singlehood's core characteristic is vulnerability: lacking both autonomous choice and positive identity, individuals easily experience loneliness, shame, and social exclusion, remaining passively single due to external constraints.

4.2.3 Adaptive Singlehood

Adaptive singles exist in a state of internal-external tension: they maintain singlehood based on autonomous motivation yet do not fully identify with this identity. In other words, they view singlehood as a "phase choice" or "transitional state," hoping to enter high-quality intimate relationships when conditions are right \cite{Lahad, 2012}. Unlike passive singles, they are not forced into singlehood by lack of resources but adopt a "would rather be alone than settle" attitude, actively delaying relationship entry until meeting suitable partners.

Existing research supports this type. Reynolds et al. (2007) found women often shifted between "choice" and "helplessness" when explaining singlehood reasons, describing "not having met a suitable partner" as both coincidental and a self-protective choice. Hostetler (2009) revealed that some gay men claiming "active choice" of singlehood were actually responding to social pressure, remaining internally dissatisfied with their status. Byrne and Carr (2005) also noted middle-aged singles often held "temporary" identity cognitions, indicating they did not view singlehood as a long-term identity. Kislev's (2023) review further points out that although this group maintains singlehood based on autonomous choice in the short term, their failure to positively identify with the identity often limits happiness and creates conflict with social expectations.

Thus, adaptive singlehood's core characteristic is its phase-based plasticity: they temporarily maintain singlehood but may enter intimate relationships at appropriate times or shift toward autonomous singlehood through positive self-growth. Unlike passive singlehood's vulnerability, adaptive singlehood's instability stems from tension between motivation and identity, with transformation reflecting internal choice adjustment rather than forced external condition changes.

4.2.4 Identity-Based Singlehood

Identity-based singles' singlehood often originates from external constraints such as physical disabilities, economic hardship, or marginalized gender identities \cite{Adamczyk, 2017; Kislev, 2019}. However, unlike passive singles, they do not view singlehood as failure but reconstruct their situation through positive identity construction. They often integrate into specific communities, transforming singlehood into value expression and even an identity label, thereby achieving psychological congruence and group belonging \cite{Kislev, 2024}.

Empirical research provides concrete cases. Ruberg and Ruelos (2020) found many LGBTQ+ individuals could view singlehood as an autonomous identity choice with community support, strengthening positive identity through values of "embracing diversity." Similarly, some members in feminist communities reject traditional marriage system pressures, positioning singlehood as part of value expression and political stance \cite{Crocetti et al., 2023}. In China, Zhang (2020) found the term "leftover women" was discursively reversed to "victorious women," with feminist communities transforming singlehood into a political position and identity label. Furthermore, Kislev (2019) shows that with the rise of singlehood communities and support networks, individuals in socially marginalized positions—whether women, sexual minorities, or others—can gain belonging and support, alleviating isolation and enhancing psychological stability \cite{Kislev, 2020}.

Therefore, identity-based singlehood's core characteristic is "transforming external constraints into active identity": initially entering singlehood due to external limitations, they do not equate it with failure or deficiency but, through community support and discursive reconstruction, integrate singlehood into an important part of self-identity. This identity internalization process enables them to achieve psychological stability and social meaning through group belonging and value expression. Unlike passive singlehood's vulnerability or adaptive singlehood's temporariness, identity-based singlehood emphasizes "redefinition" and "internalization"—individuals endow singlehood with positive value, making it a lasting identity label.

4.3 Psychological and Behavioral Differences Across Singlehood Types

Different singlehood types exhibit not only distinct formation motivations and identity positioning but also significant differences in specific psychological states, attitudes, and behavioral patterns \cite{Watkins et al, 2024}. To deepen understanding of these types' actual psychological manifestations, we next compare their psychological characteristics across three dimensions: attitudes toward intimate relationships, subjective well-being levels, and social behavior patterns.

4.3.1 Differences in Attitudes Toward Intimate Relationships and Marriage

The four singlehood types differ fundamentally in cognition and emotional attitudes toward intimate relationships and marriage. Autonomous singles tend to believe singlehood better meets their needs than marriage, viewing marriage as a non-essential life option \cite{Kislev, 2023}. In contrast, passive singles generally view partners as important sources for meeting emotional, belonging, and life goals \cite{Adamczyk, 2017}. Research indicates such individuals often believe having a partner is crucial for personal happiness, viewing their singlehood as a passive, undesirable situation that triggers inferiority, loss, and even emptiness \cite{Pepping et al., 2018}.

Adaptive singles' attitudes are more ambivalent: although they maintain singlehood short-term due to "would rather be alone than settle" motivation, they remain open to high-quality intimate relationships in the future \cite{Lahad, 2012}. Unlike passive singles' "eagerness to exit singlehood," they demonstrate prudence and goal-orientation; simultaneously, they differ from autonomous singles' "complete acceptance of singlehood," more likely viewing it as a phase choice. Identity-based singles, through group identity and cultural discourse, understand singlehood as a sustainable identity expression. They do not completely reject intimate relationships but no longer view marriage as a core path to self-actualization \cite{Zhang, 2020}.

4.3.2 Psychological States and Subjective Well-Being

The four types show significant differences in psychological states and subjective well-being. Autonomous singles, who actively choose singlehood and receive higher social acceptance, often exhibit higher life satisfaction and psychological stability. They satisfy basic autonomy and competence needs with clear self-goals \cite{Timonen & Doyle, 2014}. Passive singles, whose singlehood is non-autonomous and identity is low, often feel lonely, helpless, and self-doubting, with negative emotions, depression, and low self-esteem being common when coping with relationship failures and unmet social expectations \cite{Kislev, 2021}.

Adaptive singles occupy a middle ground: they can achieve psychological adjustment through career development and interest cultivation, avoiding persistent negative emotions, but because they fail to positively identify with singlehood, they still experience anxiety and conflict when facing social marriage pressures, resulting in moderate well-being \cite{Kislev, 2023}. Identity-based singles typically gradually endow singlehood with positive meaning through social identity construction, which helps alleviate self-conflict and enhance psychological stability and well-being \cite{Crocetti et al., 2023}. However, since their positive identity often depends on external group support, their well-being may be affected when social environments are unstable or identity resources are scarce.

4.3.3 Social Behaviors and Lifestyle Patterns

The four types demonstrate differentiated pathways in lifestyle and social participation. Autonomous singles tend to construct active, planned life rhythms, being proactive in career, interests, health, and social connections. They achieve emotional connection and social support through high-quality non-romantic relationships, leading independent yet growth-oriented lifestyles \cite{DePaulo, 2006; Kislev & Marsh, 2023}. Passive singles, dissatisfied with their situation, often have limited social investment, possibly showing avoidance or low-standard interaction strategies that undermine relationship quality and social support \cite{Eastwick et al., 2007; Spielmann et al., 2013}.

Adaptive singles exhibit strategic and phase-based social behaviors. Because they fail to fully internalize singlehood identity positively, they often partially conform to marriage norms in social interactions. For example, they may participate in matchmaking or social activities in response to family expectations while not internally eager to enter relationships \cite{Apostolou, 2017; Spielmann et al., 2013}. In contrast, identity-based singles more often endow singlehood with social meaning through cultural or political actions. They actively participate in communities, public discourse, and even social movements, transforming singlehood into value expression and identity labels to gain social visibility and positive recognition \cite{Moore & Radtke, 2015; Kislev, 2021}.

Overall, the four types show significant differences in intimate relationship attitudes, subjective well-being, and social behaviors. These differences not only supplement previous definitions of classification logic but also provide new perspectives for understanding singlehood diversity. It should be noted that systematic examination of these differences in existing literature remains limited, requiring more empirical research to verify psychological and behavioral differences across singlehood types.

5 Dynamic Transformation Mechanisms of Singlehood Types

Singlehood types are not static but may evolve with individual psychological development, social environments, and cultural contexts. Transformation here does not mean everyone necessarily experiences the same change path but reveals potential flows and migration directions between different types. In other words, transformation means individuals continuously seek new balances on the dimensions of motivational autonomy and identity recognition, resulting in identity reconstruction, lifestyle adjustment, or relationship choice shifts. Examining transformation processes thus helps understand the dynamism and plasticity of singlehood and provides theoretical value for explaining diverse trajectories in intimate relationships and identity construction.

5.1 Potential Transformation Directions for the Four Types

Autonomous singlehood is typically most stable. This group often internalizes singlehood as a core identity, showing high life satisfaction and psychological consistency (see 4.2.1). Existing qualitative and longitudinal studies show their state has strong persistence \cite{Timonen & Doyle, 2014; DePaulo, 2023}, making transformation relatively rare and dependent mainly on major life events or strong social environmental changes.

Passive singlehood is most prone to transformation. Previous research shows this group generally desires intimate relationships \cite{Spielmann et al., 2020; Apostolou et al., 2024}, making "exiting singlehood" the most direct path. Simultaneously, if they gain support in communities, they may reinterpret their originally passive state as active choice, transforming into identity-based or adaptive singlehood \cite{Slonim et al., 2015}.

Adaptive singlehood, caught in internal-external tension, has the greatest plasticity. On one hand, qualitative research reveals they often interpret "not having met a suitable partner" as a transitional choice \cite{Reynolds et al., 2007; Hostetler, 2009}, making entering intimate relationships at appropriate times a common direction. On the other hand, they may shift toward autonomous singlehood by internalizing singlehood value through self-growth, or revert to passive singlehood when pressure accumulates \cite{Kislev, 2023}.

Identity-based singlehood, though initially maintained due to non-autonomous conditions, can transform singlehood into a stable identity label through community identity and discursive reconstruction \cite{Zhang, 2020; Moore & Radtke, 2015}. In this process, some further evolve into autonomous singlehood, achieving "low autonomy → high autonomy" transformation; but if external identity resources are scarce, they may fall back into passive singlehood. A minority may enter intimate relationships after social structural constraints are removed.

In summary, autonomous singlehood is most stable, adaptive singlehood most plastic, while passive and identity-based singlehood are more sensitive to external conditions and social support.

5.2 Transformation Mechanisms of the Four Types

Singlehood type transformation does not occur spontaneously but results from multiple psychological and social factors. These factors may either promote or undermine motivational autonomy or influence identity recognition levels, shaping different transformation directions. Based on existing research and theory, attachment styles, intimate relationship experiences, developmental stages, gender socialization, and cultural norms and social support are key variables affecting singlehood type transformation \cite{Girme et al., 2023}.

5.2.1 Factors Influencing Motivational Autonomy

Changes in motivational autonomy are the core mechanism enabling singlehood type transformation. Individuals' intimate relationship motivation is not stable but influenced by psychological factors including attachment styles, relationship experiences, developmental stages, and gender. Based on these, individuals may transform from passive to adaptive, or from identity-based to autonomous singlehood.

Attachment experience adjustments can enhance or weaken relationship motivation. MacDonald and Park (2022) found avoidant individuals report higher singlehood satisfaction, tending toward autonomous singlehood, while anxious individuals more easily experience loneliness and desire companionship, showing passive characteristics. However, attachment styles themselves can change plastically due to relationship experiences, affecting dynamic evolution of motivational autonomy. Pepping et al. (2025) used latent profile analysis to show that some originally intimacy-avoidant individuals may reduce defensive motivation after positive interaction experiences, moderating motivation levels; individuals continuously disappointed by relationships may develop stronger autonomous motivation for self-protection, promoting transformation from adaptive or identity-based to autonomous singlehood. This research emphasizes motivational structure's adjustability through experiences.

Intimate relationship experiences' role in enhancing or weakening relationship motivation is a key transformation trigger. Apostolou and Michaelidou (2022) found in a study of 629 adults that more negative relationship events increase tendencies to remain single, a conclusion supported by Apostolou's (2017) questionnaire study and content analysis of Reddit users' "why I'm single" posts, where "unpleasant previous relationships" was categorized as a common reason for voluntary singlehood. These negative experiences can weaken expectations for intimate relationships, enhance defensive motivation, and facilitate transformation from identity-based to autonomous singlehood. Conversely, positive and secure relationship experiences may enhance relationship expectations and confidence, promoting transformation from passive to adaptive singlehood. This mechanism shows that positive and negative changes in intimate experiences play important roles in motivational autonomy's dynamic evolution.

Developmental stages and gender also moderate motivational autonomy evolution. Longitudinal studies show singlehood satisfaction and motivational autonomy are not static but adjust phase-wise with age \cite{Oh et al., 2022}. Younger individuals have more unstable motivation, more influenced by external evaluation and norms, while accumulated age and experience may gradually enhance autonomy, showing trends from adaptive to autonomous singlehood \cite{Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2024}. Additionally, research finds significant gender differences in motivational autonomy changes. For instance, Apostolou (2017) noted in a study of 648 singles that men more likely actively choose singlehood due to valuing freedom and avoiding family responsibilities, showing more autonomous motivation; women more likely avoid intimate relationships due to self-denial or fear of hurt, showing higher defensive motivation tendencies. Apostolou et al. (2024) further found that for men, freedom-orientation is the main motivation for autonomous singlehood, but this tendency may weaken with age-related social role changes and increased responsibility; women may be motivated to avoid relationships due to emotional risk, but after gaining identity support, their relationship motivation may be activated, showing potential to transform from passive to identity-based singlehood.

5.2.2 Factors Influencing Identity Level

Singlehood identity level has decisive influence on transformation pathways. Under similar motivational levels, differences in individuals' social identity toward singlehood may promote lateral transformation from autonomous to adaptive, or from passive to identity-based singlehood. Singlehood identity does not generate spontaneously but is continuously shaped by multiple socio-psychological factors including social norms, others' evaluations, and cultural backgrounds, reflecting individuals' dynamic identity construction processes in social contexts.

Individuals' singlehood identity construction is directly influenced by social norms. In mainstream cultural contexts, heterosexual monogamous marriage is typically established as the ideal model in socialization processes, positively associated with happiness, responsibility, and "successful adulthood" \cite{Finkel et al., 2014; DePaulo, 2023}. Fisher and Sakaluk (2020) found through two empirical studies that compared to partnered individuals, singles are more likely to be considered personally responsible for their relationship status, with negative views toward singles more easily accepted and legitimized. In this process, gender norms become key moderators. Long-term singlehood, especially for women, is more easily seen as deviating from social expectations, accompanied by obvious stigmatization pressure, particularly after exceeding common marriage and childbearing ages \cite{Lahad, 2017; Budgeon, 2016}. Qualitative research further finds single women often feel they must provide rationalizations for their status and endure "deficiency" narratives \cite{Moore & Radtke, 2015; Gui, 2020}. These structured cultural and gender norms jointly shape the basic context of singlehood identity construction.

Others' evaluation mechanisms are core socio-psychological processes in identity construction. Watkins et al. (2024) found through questionnaire and experimental studies (N = 534) that individuals' singlehood status activates stereotypes about competence, warmth, and loneliness, affecting social acceptance and self-identity construction. Greitemeyer (2009) also found singles are more easily labeled as "cold," "immature," and "unhappy." These social stereotypes not only widely exist in interpersonal interactions but also permeate institutional environments like housing and employment, creating hidden discrimination \cite{Morris et al., 2008}. Gendered stereotypes further exacerbate differential impacts: single men are more often associated with "irresponsibility," while women are more frequently labeled as "vulnerable" or "pure" \cite{Sakallı Uğurlu et al., 2021}. These gender-based negative evaluations, internalized through long-term social comparison, may weaken positive identity toward singlehood and promote transformation from autonomous to passive or identity-based singlehood to cope with social exclusion risks.

Furthermore, differences in cultural value orientations moderate singlehood identity construction. In collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, India, South Korea), marriage is often seen as an important manifestation of family and group obligations, with singlehood more easily stigmatized as family failure or responsibility avoidance \cite{Raymo et al., 2015}. Mukherjee et al.'s (2025) ethnographic study of Indian women found traditional gender roles and marriage expectations constitute structural oppression, marginalizing single women in social spaces with relatively scarce social support systems. In individualist cultures emphasizing personal autonomy and pluralistic choices, singlehood is more likely to be reconstructed with positive meaning. Bergström and Brée (2023) note that as individuals' sense of control over relationship choices increases, singlehood can transform into a symbol of autonomy and identity freedom. Gonzalez Avilés et al. (2024), based on two waves of German national panel surveys (N = 2,936), found that adolescents born later (2001–2003) reported higher singlehood satisfaction compared to those born a decade earlier (1991–1993), particularly during adolescence. This cross-cohort comparison reveals the positive impact of cultural destigmatization trends on singlehood identity construction.

Overall, singlehood type transformation results from multi-level interactions of individual psychological, social, and cultural factors. Enhancement or weakening of motivational autonomy reveals internal adjustments in intimate relationship motivation, while identity changes reflect self-positioning in social evaluation and cultural contexts. These mechanisms collectively show that singlehood type evolution is not merely a result of personal psychological choice but is deeply embedded in social norms, cultural values, and relationship experiences. Therefore, exploring dynamic transformation mechanisms not only deepens developmental understanding of singlehood but also promotes theoretical and empirical expansion in future research.

6 Research Outlook

This study attempts to respond to existing theoretical limitations rather than simply superimposing previous frameworks. By combining the motivational mechanism of "why individuals choose or maintain singlehood" with the identity process of "how singlehood identity is understood and internalized in social contexts," the study proposes a two-dimensional classification model to reveal heterogeneity and dynamic transformation pathways among single individuals. This integrated perspective not only theoretically compensates for limitations in SDT and SIT individually but also practically provides an operational hypothesis framework for subsequent research. The model's value lies not in creating new complexity but in addressing core questions that single theories cannot explain: how single individuals form diverse psychological states and social performances through the interaction of motivation and identity. However, the model currently remains mainly theoretical, with its explanatory power and applicability requiring further testing and expansion. As a multi-dimensional, dynamic socio-psychological phenomenon, singlehood's theoretical construction and refinement still require continuous empirical testing and theoretical deepening. Based on this, future research can develop along the following directions:

6.1 Deepen Research on Dynamic Transformation Mechanisms of Singlehood Types

This study proposes potential transformation pathways for singlehood types, but related claims remain mainly theoretical deductions lacking systematic empirical verification. Therefore, based on existing theoretical integration and transformation frameworks, future research needs more empirical studies to verify these inferences.

First, longitudinal tracking is the most crucial research approach. By repeatedly measuring individuals' motivational autonomy and singlehood identity levels at multiple time points (e.g., university, early career, marriage-age pressure periods), actual transformations between types can be observed, clarifying their incidence, directionality, and critical time nodes.

Second, latent profile analysis (LPA) can be used for in-depth mining of longitudinal data. Such methods can not only identify potential categories of individuals on motivational autonomy and identity dimensions but also reveal which psychological factors, social resources, or cultural backgrounds increase transformation likelihood between types, thus more finely depicting transformation conditions and mechanisms \cite{Pepping et al., 2025}. Compared to simple cross-sectional analysis, LPA in longitudinal designs can capture dynamic changes in type distribution, providing more explanatory evidence for understanding singlehood type evolution \cite{Weller et al., 2020}.

Additionally, experimental research can provide causal evidence for mechanism verification. Future studies can draw on mature social psychology paradigms: for example, manipulating social evaluation to simulate acceptance or rejection contexts to examine whether immediate changes in identity level cause transformation from autonomous/adaptive to passive singlehood; or activating relationship experiences by having participants recall positive or negative intimate relationship memories to observe whether intimate motivation strengthens or weakens, thereby promoting transformation from passive to adaptive or autonomous singlehood \cite{Burrow & Rainone, 2017; Wildschut et al., 2006}.

6.2 Strengthen Development of Measurement Tools and Empirical Validation

This study constructs a two-dimensional classification model based on motivational autonomy and social identity, which has strong theoretical explanatory power but currently lacks systematic measurement tools and large-sample empirical support, limiting the model's promotion and application in empirical research. Future research urgently needs to develop scientifically valid scales around the model's core dimensions and use diversified methods to verify its structural, discriminant, and predictive validity, promoting transformation from theory to empiricism.

Currently, existing research provides partial measurement frameworks for motivation and identity dimensions \cite{Apostolou et al., 2024; Park et al., 2023; Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020}, but has not integrated them into a unified classification tool. Based on this, it is necessary to develop a systematic measurement tool, such as the "Singlehood Type Inventory" (STI), based on dual dimensions of motivational sources and identity recognition, covering core psychological elements including individual value orientation, self-congruence, social belonging, and emotional attitudes. The scale design should highlight the interaction between the two dimensions, avoiding simple labeling and preventing blurred type boundaries and stereotype formation. Additionally, measurement tool development should fully consider variables unique to Chinese sociocultural contexts, such as gender role expectations, family intervention, marriage pressure, and "leftover women" stigma \cite{刘敏, 熊琼, 2023; Dupuis & Girme, 2024}. This localized exploration helps test the model's external validity in non-Western cultures and enriches understanding of singlehood diversity and intervention pathways.

Methodologically, future research can draw on Pepping et al.'s (2018, 2025) approach: first construct classification models based on clear psychological mechanisms, then use large-sample data with latent class analysis and other statistical methods to test model structural validity and category differences. Furthermore, to deeply reveal transformation mechanisms between types, longitudinal research designs can be introduced \cite{Oh et al., 2022}. Tracking the same group for six months to one year can dynamically observe changes and interactions in motivational autonomy and identity dimensions, providing more solid empirical evidence for the model.

6.3 Focus on New Relationships and Singlehood Identity in the AI Era

With the emotional evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, its functions have gradually shifted from auxiliary tools to "human-like interactive entities" with social attributes \cite{Cave & Dihal, 2020, 2021}. In companionship, caregiving, and emotional support domains, AI systems (e.g., emotional robots, virtual partners) have developed certain empathic capabilities, with some individuals beginning to establish emotional connections similar to intimate relationships through interactions with AI \cite{Zhang & Li, 2025}. This trend challenges traditional paradigms of human intimate relationships and provides alternative emotional fulfillment pathways for singles.

From this study's "motivational autonomy × social identity" model perspective, AI relationships may have differential impacts on different singlehood types. For identity-based and adaptive singles, AI partners can provide structured responses and low-risk emotional investment when real social resources are lacking, alleviating social loneliness and enhancing positive identity and stability toward singlehood \cite{Gulrez et al., 2016}. For autonomous singles, AI relationships may become extensions of their independent lifestyle, helping them maintain moderate connections while pursuing autonomy. This "bounded intimacy" can strengthen their intrinsic motivational structure and life satisfaction. Passive singles may have ambivalent attitudes toward AI relationships due to low autonomy and low identity: while desiring emotional compensation, they lack motivation or confidence to establish long-term connections. Such individuals are more likely to develop dependency risks on AI relationships, even using AI as a substitute strategy to avoid real relationship failures, forming a "negative compensatory attachment" pattern \cite{Prescott & Robillard, 2021}.

Future research should examine AI relationships' mediating and moderating roles across different singlehood types, exploring their pathways in social identity construction, motivation maintenance, and emotional regulation mechanisms, and further testing whether they help promote transformation from low-identity/low-autonomy singlehood to more positive types.

6.4 Emphasize Singlehood Differences Across Cultural Contexts

Current theoretical construction and empirical research on singlehood primarily focus on Western societies, often based on values of self-actualization and autonomous choice under individualist orientations \cite{Bergström & Brée, 2023}. However, in different cultural contexts, singlehood's psychological experience, social meaning, and acceptability differ significantly. Ignoring these cultural differences may lead to partial and limited understanding of singlehood \cite{Thomson et al., 2018; Yuki & Schug, 2020}.

Specifically, East Asian Confucian culture emphasizes intergenerational obligations and marriage norms, with singles often facing high pressure from family and society. In this context, "active singlehood" may be harder to gain social recognition, with passive and adaptive singlehood more easily forming \cite{刘敏, 熊琼, 2023; Raymo et al., 2015}. In more individualist cultures, singlehood choice is more easily viewed as an individual right and lifestyle expression, with higher proportions of active and identity-based singlehood and more space for social identity construction \cite{Kislev, 2023, 2024}. This indicates that different cultural attitudes and evaluations toward singlehood directly determine individuals' developmental pathways on autonomy and identity dimensions.

In the Chinese context, gender norms further intensify these cultural differences. Women's marriage and childbearing timelines are more strongly socialized (e.g., "appropriate marriage age," "reproductive obligations"), with long-term singlehood often accompanied by stigmatization and family pressure. The conflict between external expectations and personal autonomy creates more prominent tension for women between autonomy and identity \cite{陈雯, 韩若辰, 2020; Lahad, 2017}. Although single men face less moralistic evaluation, they are often constrained by institutional factors in marriage markets like economic responsibilities (e.g., high housing prices, bride prices), which similarly weaken their freedom in singlehood choice \cite{李芳芳, 朱冬亮, 2024}. Thus, while both male and female singles may face external pressures in motivation and identity construction, pressure types, intensity, and manifestations differ by gender \cite{Dupuis & Girme, 2024; Sakallı Uğurlu et al., 2021}. Existing research has not clearly revealed overall gender differences in singlehood experiences, but gender undoubtedly plays an important moderating role in singlehood type formation, transformation, and stability, requiring deeper investigation. Future empirical research should unfold under an interactive framework of "culture × gender × singlehood type" to more comprehensively explain heterogeneity in single populations.

Future research should also further test the cultural adaptability and stability of the two-dimensional classification model from cross-cultural perspectives. Through cross-national sample comparisons, researchers can explore whether the mechanisms of "autonomy" and "social identity" function consistently across cultures and identify moderating effects of cultural variables such as familism intensity, social relationship mobility, and collectivism levels. Additionally, research should focus on cognitive reconstruction brought by cultural changes, exploring how traditional marriage values gradually transform under globalization, urbanization, and value diversification, thereby affecting individuals' intimate relationship choices and identity construction \cite{DePaulo, 2023; Kislev, 2024}. By integrating cultural psychology and social change perspectives, future research can build more inclusive and explanatory singlehood theories.