Singlehood–mental health associations in sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth: A longitudinal study

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the relationships between multiple dimensions of singlehood and mental health, along with their moderators, in a diverse cohort of sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (N = 205, M_age = 19.5; 39% < 18 years old; 27% gender minority; 74% racial/ethnic minority) who were single (no romantic partnership) at least once across 7 visits (retention >90% at all visits). Singlehood dimensions included single status, length of singlehood, and transitions into and out of singlehood at each visit, as well as proportion of singlehood periods across all visits. At the between-person level, individuals with a higher proportion of singlehood periods across the study reported higher stress, anxiety, and depression. At the within-person level, while youth experienced increased depression when single, their depression and stress decreased as the length of singlehood increased. Additionally, fear of being single (FOBS) and perceived social support, each showing unique associations with mental health outcomes in this study, were included as moderators. Notably, only those with low to average (not high) FOBS experienced a reduction in mental health problems as singlehood length increased. Taken together, the findings shed light on the factors associated with mental health and well-being in single individuals from a vulnerable and marginalized population.

Keywords

Youth and adolescents sexual and gender minority assigned female at birth singlehood fear of being single social support mental health

Introduction

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or non-binary individuals, experience higher rates of mental health problems (e.g., depression) than their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts (Amos et al., 2020; Lytle et al., 2014; Marshal et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2021). Within the SGM community, disparities in mental health problems are largest for youth and emerging adults assigned female at birth (AFAB; Lipson et al., 2019; Marshal et al., 2008, 2013). Relationship involvement is a key protective factor for mental health in SGM-AFAB youth, such that partnered individuals report fewer mental health problems than their single peers (Whitton et al., 2020, 2021).

However, this does not mean that being single is inherently bad for mental health. Many SGM and non-SGM singles do not suffer (and even thrive) from being single (Baams et al., 2014; Willitts et al., 2004). Despite the multidimensional and complex nature of the issue, relationship science often excludes singles from the discussion of well-being, unless they function as a point of comparison for their partnered peers (Girme, Park, et al., 2022a). This between-group comparison ignores the within-group variability among singles that can point to the factors associated with their well-being (Girme, Park, et al., 2022a). In addition, relationship science has often ignored the unique experiences of singlehood for SGM youth who experience barriers to relationship formation. These include limited pool of partners and the constant risks of stigma, discrimination, and rejection upon disclosing their SGM identity to romantic interests (DeHaan et al., 2013; Korchmaros et al., 2015; Owens et al., 2023).

This study explores the associations between singlehood dimensions (beyond current status) and mental health in SGM-AFAB youth, the population already facing significant mental health disparities. Our objectives are twofold: 1) to identify the associations and 2) to better understand these associations through contextual factors closely linked to singlehood, namely fear of being single and social support.

Singlehood and mental health

Research on the general population has documented associations between singlehood status–defined as no romantic partnership–and poor mental health. Single women tend to report lower psychological well-being and more mental health problems than romantically partnered women (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Simon & Barrett, 2010; Willitts et al., 2004). However, the theoretical frameworks of these studies have been rooted in heteronormative narratives that uphold conventional norms (e.g., marriage, family) and depict singles as deficient or deviant (for a review, see Girme, Park, et al., 2022a). It therefore cannot be assumed that these associations will generalize to SGM individuals, whose lives and relationships operate outside of heteronormativity. On the other hand, the associations between singlehood and poor mental health may be exacerbated for SGM individuals because people who are queer and single could experience stigma due to each of their marginalized identities. Though relatively few in number, studies exploring these questions with SGM-AFAB samples have found that, like in cisgender heterosexual samples, singlehood status is associated with worse mental health (Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Kornblith et al., 2016; Whitton et al., 2018, 2020, 2021).

The experience of singlehood among SGM individuals is likely unique and shaped by minority stress related to their SGM status (Meyer, 1995). Many SGM people remain single due to a collective history of stigma and discrimination (Hostetler, 2009), and those with higher levels of internalized SGM stigma are more likely to remain single for longer periods (Laming et al., 2023). Additionally, many same-sex relationships have assimilated through monogamy, gender conformity, and domesticity (Lavender-Stott, 2023). Those who align with conventional family values find acceptance, while deviations from heteronormative relationship norms (e.g., being single or having only sexual partners) result in further marginalization (Lavender-Stott, 2023). Consequently, single SGM individuals may find themselves navigating a dual challenge: coping with the minority stress that contributes to their singlehood while also facing societal pressures to adhere to conventional relationship norms. This intersectionality highlights the need for a nuanced approach in researching the link between singlehood and mental health among SGM populations.

Existing research predominantly centers on the between-person effect of singlehood status (single vs. not) on mental health, using cross-sectional designs. Much less understood are the multiple dimensions of singlehood (e.g., singlehood length or transitions) that can fluctuate over time and may explain their mental health above and beyond the ‘state’ of being single. First, it is unclear how the length of singlehood may affect psychological well-being. Though extended periods of being single might allow individuals the opportunity to enjoy the benefits associated with single life (e.g., increased freedom), it is also possible that they may worsen mental health due to prolonged romantic loneliness. Research on the relationship between the length/duration of singlehood and mental health, especially among SGM youth, is very limited. Most studies focus on long-term singlehood in (relatively) older adults, often without directly exploring its impact on mental health (Hostetler, 2012; Laming et al., 2023; Timonen & Doyle, 2014). Further, conflicting findings have emerged: one cross-sectional study (Schachner et al., 2008) shows that long-term single adults (i.e., not being in a relationship for at least three years and not anticipating one in the near future) reported higher levels of mental health problems compared to their partnered counterparts. However, this study only compares between-group statuses and does not consider the progressive duration of singlehood. In contrast, a longitudinal study shows that adults tend to become more content with singlehood as they age (Park et al., 2022), suggesting a possible adaptation effect.

While existing literature predominantly focuses on major life events, such as entering marriage, experiences relating to transitions into or out of singlehood receive much less attention. These latter transitions, which are more transient and may involve significant psychological adjustments for youth, are often overshadowed by more traditional milestones centered on romantic relationships (singular events of entering/exiting a relationship). The emotional and social adjustments required during periods of singlehood transitions can have profound impacts on mental health. For example, the period following a breakup may be marked by a significant decline in mental health, suggesting that the transition phase itself, rather than the state of being single, could be the critical factor influencing well-being. Understanding these dynamics is essential to disentangling the effects of relationship status from the effects of transitions, thereby preventing the misattribution of mental health declines to singlehood itself. Research has shown that a recent breakup is associated with poorer mental health (Simon & Barrett, 2010; Wade & Pevalin, 2004), though the temporality of this association is unclear. Conversely, transitioning into partnerships is linked to better well-being (Barr et al., 2016; Bühler et al., 2023), but this benefit is contingent on the quality of the new relationship (Barr et al., 2016). These findings underscore the need to look beyond relationship status and explore the distinct impacts of transitions themselves.

The current study offers a nuanced analysis of both transient and enduring aspects of singlehood and their distinct impacts on mental well-being. By leveraging multi-wave data, we address the limitations inherent in cross-sectional research. For example, instead of relying on retrospective recalls, our design captures the actual progression of singlehood length over time. In sum, this longitudinal approach allows us to explore not only the overall association between singlehood and mental health across individuals but also the variations within individuals over time.

Moderators: Fear of being single and social support

We also attempt to move the field beyond simple demonstrations of associations between singlehood and mental health by exploring socioemotional factors that may moderate these associations. In particular, we explore whether fear of being single and social support—factors that are theoretically and empirically linked to singlehood—buffer or exacerbate the singlehood-mental health association.

Fear of being single

Fear of being single (FOBS) entails “concern, anxiety, or distress regarding the current or prospective experience of being without a romantic partner” (Spielmann et al., 2013, p. 1050). While research has established the link between FOBS and poor well-being in non-SGM adults (Girme, Park, et al., 2022a), its implications for SGM youth have yet to be explored. Given the common challenges of being single (e.g., loneliness), along with the added minority stress experienced by SGM individuals, it is crucial to examine whether FOBS exacerbates mental health challenges associated with singlehood in this population.

People often experience social pressure to have a relationship (Moorman, 2020; Sprecher & Felmlee, 2021) and stigma or negative stereotypes associated with being single (A. N. Fisher & Sakaluk, 2020; Girme, Sibley, et al., 2022b; Greitemeyer, 2009; Hertel et al., 2007). SGM-AFAB youth in particular may fear being single partly due to unique barriers to romantic relationship formation (e.g., limited pool of partners). Their FOBS may not only reflect anxiety over the absence of romantic partners but also broader apprehension about the dual challenges of being single and SGM. Such fears could cultivate a negative perception of singlehood (e.g., viewing it not as a choice but as an unavoidable condition), which in turn exacerbate the typical challenges associated with being single.

In this study, we examine how negative emotions or perceptions related to being single help us better understand the link between singlehood and mental health. Specifically, we are interested in how individual differences in FOBS might moderate the associations between singlehood and mental health problems. For instance, although involuntary singlehood is linked to lengthier period of being single (Apostolou & Wang, 2019), many, especially those from marginalized groups, may choose prolonged (or even life-long) singlehood (DePaulo, 2023; Kislev, 2023; Lavender-Stott, 2023) for reasons of empowerment and personal growth (Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2023; Moorman, 2020; Timonen & Doyle, 2014). However, those high in FOBS may not view their singlehood as an intentional choice (Adamczyk et al., 2021; Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2023). It is possible that SGM youth with high FOBS experience greater mental health declines when single due to their negative perceptions and anxieties about being single. This FOBS could also hinder their ability to enjoy the mental health benefits of singlehood (e.g., increased autonomy) that often accompanies prolonged periods of being single.

Social support

Being single is often associated with loneliness and lower perceived support, which are strongly linked to poorer well-being (Adamczyk, 2016; Adamczyk & Segrin, 2015; Girme, Sibley, et al., 2022b). While romantic partnerships provide crucial emotional support (Hombrados-Mendieta et al., 2013) and can buffer SGM individuals from SGM-related stressors (Feinstein et al., 2016; Whitton et al., 2018), many singles maintain robust social networks that offer significant support. Single (vs. partnered) people tend to have larger social networks and better social support functioning with family, neighbors, and friends (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016), They are also more likely to prioritize, invest in, and benefit from these relationships (A. N. Fisher et al., 2021; McLaughlin et al., 2002; Park et al., 2021; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016). For SGM people, strong community ties, friend-centered networks, and ‘family of choice’ are crucial sources of social support that help reduce reliance on romantic partners (Holcomb et al., 2022; Lavender-Stott & Allen, 2023; Leahy & Chopik, 2020; Paceley et al., 2017). Many also engage in non-traditional relationships (e.g., queer platonic relationships, solo-polyamory) that fulfill intimacy needs usually reserved for romantic relationships in traditional heterosexual contexts (Lavender-Stott, 2023). These robust social support from families of choice and close relationships not only offers emotional and instrumental support but also caregiving (Thomeer et al., 2021). The strong emphasis on this extensive network might lessen loneliness in many single SGM individuals. Indeed, research suggests that it is the absence of friendship support, rather than singlehood itself, that is a key determinant of loneliness (Dykstra, 1995).

In this study, we are interested in exploring whether social support moderates the link between singlehood and mental health. If the reduction of social support is the primary mechanism through which singlehood adversely affects mental health, then individuals who maintain strong social connections should not experience the detrimental effects of singlehood on mental health to the same extent as those with lower social support.

Despite numerous studies on the mental health benefits of social support among SGM youth and adults (Jacmin-Park et al., 2022; Leahy & Chopik, 2020; McDonald, 2018; Snapp et al., 2015; Watson et al., 2019), little is known about how social support moderates the relationships between various singlehood dimensions and mental health in SGM-AFAB youth. One study shows that high levels of support from family and significant others can buffer the impact of prolonged singlehood on romantic loneliness (Adamczyk, 2016). Given the role of social support in reducing loneliness and improving well-being, it is crucial to investigate whether SGM youth with different levels of social support experience different mental health outcomes related to singlehood.

Current study

This longitudinal study explored the association between singlehood and mental health in a diverse group of SGM-AFAB youth aged 16–29 (39% < 18 years old; 27% gender minority; 74% racial/ethnic minority). One aim of the study (Aim 1) was to identify how different dimensions of singlehood are linked to mental health. Using data from 7 visits over the span of 3.5 years, we examined the effects of several singlehood dimensions, including singlehood status (time-varying), length of singlehood (time-varying), transition into and out of singlehood (time-varying) and proportion of singlehood throughout the study period (static/average), on mental health problems (stress, depression, and anxiety). Another aim (Aim 2) was to identify moderators (FOBS and social support) of the associations between singlehood dimensions and mental health problems.

It is worth emphasizing that the current study is exploratory in nature. We approached our research questions using a sub-sample of pre-existing data from a larger longitudinal project designed to broadly examine health and relationships among SGM-AFAB youth. The primary intent of this study is to provide preliminary insights into the singlehood-mental health association in this population, given the notable lack of research in this area.

Method

Supplemental materials, including measures, syntax, power analysis, singlehood variables by study visit, and detailed examples for singlehood coding are available on OSF: https://osf.io/uqsvz/

Participants

Data were drawn from a larger longitudinal cohort study examining SGM-AFAB youth’s health and relationships in the U.S. All participants were AFAB, aged 16–20 years at initial enrollment in their cohort of origin¹, lived in the Chicago area, and identified as a sexual or gender minority or reported same-gender attractions/sexual behavior. Participants were recruited using venue-based recruitment (e.g., SGM community organizations, health fairs), social media advertisements, and incentivized snowball sampling ($10 for every successfully recruited peer). All participants completed a baseline visit with follow-up visits every six months (except visit 7, which occurred 12 months after visit 6) and were paid $50 for each assessment. All study protocols were approved by Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board with a waiver of parental permission for minor participants, as the study posed minimal risk and requiring parental consent would deter many SGM adolescents from participating due to fear of being outed (C. B. Fisher et al., 2016; Macapagal et al., 2017).

All baseline visits took place in person in a university setting. For subsequent visits, participants had the option to complete assessments online before the study switched to fully remote in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed self-report measures of health behaviors, mental health, and psychosocial variables in line with the original project’s objectives.

The current study used data from 205 participants who reported being single in at least one visit. For descriptives of each singlehood variable (e.g., singlehood status) at each visit, see supplemental materials. Table 1 shows sample demographics at baseline.

Table 1.

Demographics at baseline (N = 205).

	n	%
Age (M = 19.47, Mdn = 18.62, SD = 3.18, Range = 16–29)
Gender identity
Woman	150	73.2
Transgender man	21	10.2
Gender non-conforming	12	5.9
Genderqueer	11	5.4
Non-binary	10	4.9
Not listed	1	0.5
Sexual identity
Gay	7	3.4
Lesbian	39	19.0
Bisexual	69	33.7
Queer	29	14.1
Unsure/questioning	12	5.9
Straight/heterosexual	3	1.5
Pansexual	34	16.6
Asexual	10	4.9
Not listed	2	1.0
Race/Ethnicity
Non-hispanic Black	72	35.1
Non-hispanic White	54	26.3
Hispanic/Latinx	43	21.0
Asian	14	6.8
Biracial/Multiracial	20	9.8
Not listed	2	1.0
Education
8^th grade or lower	2	1
Some high school	96	46.8
GED or high school diploma	12	5.9
Some college	87	42.4
Undergrade or equivalent degree	4	2
Some graduate school	2	1
Graduate degree	2	1
Annual income
< $20,000	192	93.7
$20,000 - $39,999	9	4.4
$40,000 - $49,999	2	1.0
$50,000 - $59,999	1	0.5
Partnership at baseline
Yes	54	26.3
No	151	73.7

Measures

Singlehood

At each visit, participants were asked to report on up to three partnerships they had in the past 6 months. Those who reported any partnerships provided further details, including partnership type (ranging from one-time sexual encounters to long-term/committed relationships), current status (and if no longer ongoing, the date of breakup), and partnership duration. Those who reported only partnerships that were purely sexual (e.g., hookups) were considered ‘single’ in this study. For details about how we coded different dimensions of singlehood (e.g., status, transition, length), see the Data Analysis section (Level 1 Predictors and Level 2 Predictors).

Fear of being single

At any visit (except for baseline) when participants reported being single, they completed a 7-item version of the FOBS Scale (Spielmann et al., 2013) assessing discomfort with their current singlehood status (e.g., “It scares me to think that there might not be anyone out there for me”) on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). We modified the scale to make it more appropriate for SGM youth (e.g., dropping “I need to find a partner before I’m too old to have and raise children”; see supplementals for detail). Items were averaged to create a total score, for which higher values indicated stronger FOBS (ω Range = .90–.95).

Social support

Using the 12-item Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988), participants reported levels of perceived social support from friends (e.g., “I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows”), family (e.g., “I get the emotional help and support I need from my family”), and special persons (e.g., “There is a special person who is around when I am in need”) on a 7-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree) at all waves. Notably, one might argue that the concept of “special persons” are not pertinent to single individuals. However, our choice to include these items was guided by their relevance to queer relationships, where the term can encompass non-romantic significant others (e.g., chosen family, platonic life partner; Lavender-Stott, 2023). It is worth highlighting that our conclusions remained the same even when excluding these items from the analysis. Items were averaged to create a total score, for which higher values indicated stronger social support (ω Range = .88–.92).

Stress

At all waves, we measured general stress in the past month using the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, 1988; Cohen et al., 1983). Participants rated how frequently they experienced each stressed feeling (e.g., “felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them”) on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 4 = very often). Items were summed to create a total score, for which higher values indicated higher stress (ω ranged from .63–.79 across visits).

Depression and anxiety

At all waves, we assessed depressive and anxious symptoms in the past week using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Short Form 8a and Anxiety Short Form 8a (Pilkonis et al., 2011). Participants rated how frequently they experienced each of 8 depressed feelings (e.g., unhappiness, helplessness) and 8 anxious feelings (e.g., unease) on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Items were summed to create a total score, for which higher values indicated more depressive and anxiety symptoms (ω ranged from .94–.96 across visits for depression and from .93–.96 for anxiety).

Data Analysis

We conducted multilevel modeling using MPlus and maximum likelihood robust (FIML) estimation. Assessment visits/occasions (Level 1) were nested within participants (Level 2). Dependent variables (depression, anxiety, stress) were predicted using random intercept and slope models, which allowed the initial values and slopes (across study visits) to vary between persons.

Level 1 (within-person) predictors

For detailed examples of how we coded Level 1 singlehood variables, please refer to the supplemental materials.

Singlehood status was assessed at each visit, indicating whether someone was romantically partnered (coded as 0) or not (coded as 1). A visit was coded as ‘1’ (single) if participants reported any of the following during the past 6 months: 1) no romantic partnerships or 2) romantic partnerships that had ended before the visit, indicating they were currently single. Therefore, a ‘single’ status in this study was operationalized as the absence of ongoing and current romantic partnerships at the time of assessment.

Transition into singlehood was coded as ‘1’ for visits at which participants first became single (and remained single at the time of assessment) after being romantically partnered. This coding also captures transitions that occurred entirely within the interval of a given visit (e.g., if a participant entered and then ended a relationship during the 6-month interval of that visit). Conversely, transition out of singlehood was coded as ‘1’ for visits at which participants first entered a new romantic partnership (that was ongoing at the time of assessment) after being single. For both types of transitions, the timing of relationship formation or dissolution was considered. Specifically, the breakup or formation of a new partnership must have occurred within the interval between adjacent visits (6 months [180 days] for visits 1–6 and 12 months [365 days] for visit 7). Taken together, this coding reflects new transitions to the state (single or partnered) that participants were in at the time of assessment.

Singlehood length quantified the elapsed time youth reported being continuously single (no romantic partnership in the past 6 months) at each consecutive visit. For example, a participant who was single during 2 consecutive visits (Visits 2 and 3), had an interim partnership (Visits 4), and then returned to singlehood for 3 consecutive visits (Visits 5, 6, 7) would have ascending values of 1 and 2 for the first singlehood periods (Visits 2 and 3). Because of the interruption in singlehood at Visit 4 (coded as 0), the subsequent periods of singlehood at Visits 5, 6 and 7 would be coded as 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Interruptions in singlehood also included those within the same visit—that is, if a romantic partnership was reported within the last 6 months of that visit, regardless of current single status at the assessment. Additionally, in rare cases where participants missed intermediate visits, their singlehood length would restart at the next available visit. For example, if a participant was single at Visits 3 and 5 but missed Visit 4, the count would reset, with Visit 5 coded as ‘1’. Functionally, this coding approach is similar to a linear effect of time, assessing whether mental health changed with acclimation to singlehood.

Lastly, the effect of time (Occasion) was included both as a random slope and as a fixed main effect to index change over time in depression, anxiety, and stress across the study period. This variable was coded as 0–6, where 0 corresponded to the baseline visit and 6 corresponded to the last visit.

Level 2 (between-person) predictors

Level 2 predictors included proportion of singlehood periods (i.e., person mean of singlehood status), which represent a percentage of the total singlehood periods over the entire study (range = 14.3%–100%), FOBS, and social support. All level 2 independent variables were treated as fixed and were included as person means (e.g., FOBS was aggregated across all available visits), centered by the grand mean of the sample.

Multilevel models

Model fitting was iterative. In the first set of models, to test unique effects of each singlehood dimension, all singlehood variables were included without the moderators (main effect model). All main effect models were run separately by outcome (depression, anxiety, stress) for a total of 3 models. Note that for better interpretations of the moderator’s main effects, we also ran the same main effect models with the inclusion of FOBS and social support (see supplemental materials). Then, interaction effects were included between the moderators and singlehood dimensions (interaction model) to examine their roles in the singlehood-mental health association. All interaction models were run separately by outcome and by moderator, resulting in a total of 6 additional models (3 outcomes × 2 moderators). Regarding statistical power, we conducted post hoc Monte Carlo simulations (see supplementals for more details). Overall, the power to detect effects varied greatly, but the power is consistently high for all significant effects, ranging from 0.88 to 1.00.

All main effect and interaction models controlled for participant age at baseline as well as both Level 1 and 2 gender identity. For gender identity, identifying as cisgender was coded as 1 and identifying as a gender minority (e.g., non-binary, transgender) was coded as 0 for the Level 1 variable. For the Level 2 variable, participants would be coded as gender minority (1) if they endorsed a non-cisgender identity at least once throughout their study participation, otherwise they were coded as cisgender (0). Additionally, in each interaction model, the main effect of the other moderator was included as an additional control.

Results

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for continuous variables; all were normally distributed, and missingness ranged from 0% (e.g., social support) to 7.5% (Fear of Being Single²). Bivariate correlations indicated moderate covariation between continuous constructs, with little evidence of extreme collinearity (Table 3). Thus, we proceeded with multilevel analyses.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for continuous variables.

	N	Min	Max	M	SD	Skew	Kurtosis
Anxiety	205	8.00	40.00	20.61	7.57	0.17	−0.43
Depression	205	8.00	40.00	19.79	7.60	0.22	−0.66
Stress	205	1.00	16.00	8.62	2.97	−0.42	−0.13
Social support	205	1.00	7.00	5.05	1.21	−0.72	0.58
Fear of being single	188	1.00	5.00	2.65	1.24	0.18	−1.27
Proportion of singlehood periods	205	14.3	100.0	52.24	27.61	0.31	−1.06

Note. Because the FOBS measure was not administered at baseline and was only given when participants endorsed being single, descriptives for this variable reflect the person mean across all available occasions.

Table 3.

Bivariate correlations between continuous variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Anxiety	--
2. Depression	.83**	--
3. Stress	.70**	.78**	--
4. Social support	−.16*	−.33**	−.34**	--
5. Fear of being single	.52**	.44**	.38**	−.05	--
6. Proportion of singlehood periods	.20**	.23**	.24**	−.18*	.31**

Note. All variables were person means. **p < .01.

Main effect models

In all main effect models (Table 4), the residual variance of the intercept (Est Range = 3.31–25.01, ps<.001) and random variance of the slope of occasion were significant (Est Range = .07–.64, ps<.05), indicating that participants differed in their baseline values and trajectories of depression, anxiety, and stress. The significant effect of occasion suggested that stress (p = .04) decreased over time for SGM-AFAB youth in this sample.

Table 4.

Multilevel models for main effects.

	Stress				Depression				Anxiety
	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p
Intercept	8.07	8.07	18.19	<.001	16.62	1.14	14.55	<.001	18.47	1.11	16.65	<.001
Age	−0.10	−0.10	−2.07	0.04	−0.24	0.12	−2.06	0.04	−0.28	0.13	−2.14	0.03
Gender identity – Level 1	−0.47	−0.47	−1.56	0.12	−0.15	0.73	−0.20	0.84	−0.77	0.77	−0.99	0.32
Gender identity – Level 2	0.31	0.31	0.84	0.40	2.36	0.91	2.60	0.01	2.12	0.96	2.20	0.03
Occasion	−0.09	−0.09	−2.02	0.04	−0.15	0.11	−1.37	0.17	−0.06	0.10	−0.55	0.58
Singlehood status	0.46	0.46	1.38	0.17	1.57	0.73	2.14	0.03	1.16	0.69	1.69	0.09
Singlehood length	−0.19	−0.19	−2.34	0.02	−0.51	0.19	−2.73	0.01	−0.28	0.19	−1.50	0.14
Transition into singlehood	−0.16	−0.16	−0.73	0.47	−0.86	0.51	−1.69	0.09	−0.77	0.50	−1.54	0.12
Transition out of singlehood	−0.01	−0.01	−0.04	0.97	−0.65	0.56	−1.16	0.25	−0.09	0.59	−0.15	0.88
Proportion of singlehood periods	0.02	0.02	3.20	0.001	0.04	0.02	2.78	0.01	0.04	0.02	2.39	0.02

Note. Significant effects are bolded.

For Aim 1, controlling for all other singlehood dimensions, youth who reported proportionally more periods of being single across the entire study on average reported more stress (p = .001), depression (p = .01), and anxiety (p = .02). At the within-person level, youth reported more depression at occasions when they were single (p = .03). In contrast, depression (p = .01) and stress (p = .02) decreased as singlehood length increased. There were no significant main effects of transitions into or out of singlehood.

Moderation models

Interactions with FOBS and social support (Aim 2) are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Social support did not moderate any effects of singlehood dimensions. We also found no interaction between most of the singlehood dimensions and FOBS, except those between FOBS and singlehood length on stress (p = .01), depression (p < .001), and anxiety (p < .001). Simple slopes suggested that longer consecutive singlehood period was associated with decreased stress (Figure 1), depression (Figure 2), and anxiety (Figure 3) among youth with low FOBS (Stress Est = −.50, p = .001; Depression Est = −1.40, p < .001; Anxiety Est = −1.57, p < .001) and average FOBS (Stress Est = −.29, p = .001; Depression Est = −.75, p < .001; Anxiety Est = −.66, p < .001), but not for youth with high FOBS (Stress Est = −.08, p = .37; Depression Est = −.10, p = .61; Anxiety Est = .25, p = .21).

Table 5.

Multilevel models for FOBS interactions.

	Stress				Depression				Anxiety
	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p
Intercept	8.29	0.43	19.35	<.001	16.23	1.14	14.22	<.001	18.05	1.15	15.70	<.001
Age	−0.07	0.05	−1.37	0.17	−0.18	0.11	−1.63	0.10	−0.14	0.12	−1.16	0.25
Gender identity – Level 1	−0.33	0.32	−1.00	0.32	0.12	0.79	0.15	0.88	−0.36	0.80	−0.46	0.65
Gender identity – Level 2	0.10	0.38	0.25	0.80	1.89	0.98	1.93	0.05	2.08	0.99	2.09	0.04
Occasion	−0.08	0.05	−1.79	0.07	−0.14	0.11	−1.25	0.21	−0.04	0.10	−0.43	0.67
Singlehood status	0.40	0.35	1.13	0.26	2.26	0.80	2.83	0.01	1.85	0.75	2.46	0.01
Singlehood length	−0.29	0.09	−3.32	0.001	−0.75	0.19	−4.01	<.001	−0.66	0.18	−3.63	<.001
Transition into singlehood	−0.31	0.23	−1.37	0.17	−1.05	0.51	−2.04	0.04	−1.16	0.49	−2.35	0.02
Transition out of singlehood	−0.29	0.33	−0.89	0.38	−0.45	0.64	−0.70	0.48	−0.12	0.69	−0.17	0.87
Proportion of singlehood periods	0.01	0.01	1.63	0.10	0.01	0.02	0.90	0.37	0.01	0.02	0.74	0.46
Social support	−0.76	0.15	−5.13	<.001	−1.86	0.52	−3.55	<.001	−0.85	0.49	−1.72	0.09
FOBS	0.37	0.20	1.82	0.07	0.76	0.51	1.49	0.14	1.42	0.58	2.44	0.02
FOBS*Singlehood status	0.03	0.28	0.12	0.91	0.25	0.63	0.40	0.69	−0.40	0.62	−0.64	0.52
FOBS *singlehood length	0.17	0.07	2.55	0.01	0.52	0.13	4.09	<.001	0.74	0.14	5.30	<.001
FOBS*Transition into singlehood	−0.06	0.18	−0.32	0.75	0.26	0.40	0.64	0.52	0.19	0.40	0.47	0.64
FOBS*Transition out of singlehood	−0.06	0.25	−0.26	0.80	0.31	0.53	0.58	0.56	0.58	0.52	1.12	0.26
FOBS*Proportion of singlehood periods	−0.01	0.01	−0.97	0.33	−0.01	0.01	−0.82	0.41	−0.02	0.01	−1.70	0.09

Note. FOBS = fear of being single. Significant effects are bolded.

Table 6.

Multilevel models for social support interactions.

	Stress				Depression				Anxiety
	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p	Est	S.E.	Est/S.E.	p
Intercept	8.33	0.44	18.78	<.001	16.63	1.15	14.51	<.001	18.31	1.12	16.34	<.001
Age	−0.07	0.05	−1.44	0.15	−0.18	0.11	−1.68	0.09	−0.16	0.12	−1.27	0.21
Gender identity – Level 1	−0.32	0.33	−0.98	0.33	0.08	0.79	0.11	0.92	−0.45	0.81	−0.55	0.58
Gender identity – Level 2	0.05	0.38	0.12	0.91	1.69	0.97	1.74	0.08	1.89	0.99	1.92	0.06
Occasion	−0.09	0.05	−2.01	0.045	−0.17	0.11	−1.54	0.13	−0.07	0.11	−0.64	0.52
Singlehood status	0.22	0.33	0.65	0.52	1.55	0.77	2.01	0.04	1.07	0.69	1.55	0.12
Singlehood length	−0.19	0.08	−2.46	0.01	−0.48	0.19	−2.58	0.01	−0.28	0.19	−1.52	0.13
Transition into singlehood	−0.21	0.22	−0.94	0.35	−0.80	0.53	−1.52	0.13	−0.73	0.51	−1.43	0.15
Transition out of singlehood	−0.30	0.31	−0.98	0.33	−0.64	0.61	−1.05	0.29	−0.30	0.61	−0.49	0.63
Proportion of singlehood periods	0.01	0.01	1.62	0.11	0.01	0.01	0.85	0.39	0.01	0.02	0.66	0.51
Social support	−0.77	0.21	−3.64	<.001	−1.66	0.73	−2.28	0.02	−0.74	0.61	−1.21	0.23
FOBS	0.52	0.12	4.15	<.001	1.51	0.31	4.94	<.001	1.96	0.35	5.64	<.001
SS*Singlehood status	0.04	0.31	0.14	0.89	0.01	0.77	0.02	0.99	−0.17	0.65	−0.26	0.80
SS*Singlehood length	−0.03	0.09	−0.38	0.70	−0.16	0.19	−0.83	0.41	−0.02	0.22	−0.10	0.92
SS*Transition into singlehood	−0.01	0.24	−0.05	0.96	−0.22	0.62	−0.36	0.72	0.20	0.56	0.35	0.73
SS*Transition out of singlehood	−0.12	0.25	−0.48	0.63	−0.57	0.61	−0.93	0.36	−0.45	0.63	−0.71	0.48
SS*Proportion of singlehood periods	−0.01	0.01	−1.02	0.31	−0.02	0.02	−1.34	0.18	−0.01	0.02	−0.33	0.74

Note. FOBS = fear of being single. SS = social support. Significant effects are bolded.

Figure 1.

Interaction between Level 1 singlehood length and Level 2 fear of being single on stress.

Figure 2.

Interaction between Level 1 singlehood length and Level 2 fear of being single on depression.

Figure 3.

Interaction between Level 1 singlehood length and Level 2 fear of being single on anxiety.

Regarding main effects, before adding interaction terms (see supplemental materials), higher social support was related to lower levels of stress and depression (ps < .001), whereas higher FOBS was related to higher levels of all mental health outcomes (ps < .001). Notably, the effects of proportion of singlehood periods disappeared (even in models without interactions; see supplemental materials). Meanwhile, the effects of current singlehood status and length remained and even became significant for anxiety in the FOBS interaction model. In the same model, transition into singlehood was associated with lower depression (p = .04) and anxiety (p = .02), suggesting that newly single individuals may experience a sense of relief from exiting a presumably unsatisfying partnership. However, given that the inclusion of interaction terms drastically alters the interpretation of main effects³, we urge caution in interpreting any main effects in the interaction models.

Discussion

Singlehood and its dimensions

Our findings revealed significant between- and within-person associations among various dimensions of singlehood and mental health problems in SGM-AFAB youth. However, the nature of these associations is not uniform across all dimensions.

First, proportionally more periods of being single were associated with higher levels of stress, depression, and anxiety (though these associations disappeared after adding the moderators). Additionally, participants reported increased depression at times they were single, suggesting the transitory impact of singlehood status. Put simply, not only are the total experiences of being single linked to poor mental health across individuals, but being single also corresponds with fluctuations in mental health problems over time within the same individuals. This may not be surprising given the key role romantic partners play in reducing loneliness and helping individuals manage their mental health. (Muscari & Fleming, 2019). Our study confirms previous findings regarding the link between singlehood status and mental health challenges, while also adding depth to the existing literature by teasing apart the unique effects of overall singlehood exposure and current status.

Interestingly, a continuous period of remaining single was associated with decreased mental health problems. It is possible that one become more accustomed to singlehood as time progresses, possibly as the negative effects of singlehood dissipate. It is also possible that SGM youth adapt positively to single life over time. Those who continue to remain single may derive mental health benefits from increased positive appraisal and satisfaction with singlehood experiences (Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2023), as well as a decreased desire for romantic relationships over time (Kislev, 2021). This adaptation could also reflect a crucial identity development process, wherein remaining single for longer periods gives SGM youth more time and freedom to explore and solidify their identity and preferences.

The non-significant effects of transitions in this study (at least before the inclusion of several interaction terms) are in contrast with past research that typically focuses on major life changes such as marriage or entering a new relationship in adults (e.g., Bühler et al., 2023; Wade & Pevalin, 2004). It is possible that transitioning between non-marital relationship statuses is a normal part of youth development and thus does not impact mental health as significantly as it does in adults, especially when other important dimensions of singlehood (e.g., length) are considered.

Fear of being single and social support

Only the interactions between singlehood length and FOBS were significant. Specifically, an extended period of continuous singlehood was associated with decreased mental health problems, but only for those with low to average FOBS. Although past research suggests that people generally grow more content with being single over time (Park et al., 2022), SGM-AFAB youth with a strong fear of being single may dwell on the negative aspects of singlehood (e.g., romantic loneliness; Adamczyk, 2016) making it harder for them to adapt to single life. Conversely, those with relatively low FOBS may be more likely to adjust to and enjoy the benefits of singlehood (e.g., personal freedom), thereby enhancing their mental well-being over time.

Although no other interactions were found, FOBS and social support each showed a unique and independent association with mental health problems. First, in line with prior research involving non-SGM adults (Girme, Park, et al., 2022a), FOBS was associated with detrimental mental health outcomes. Although the findings may not be concerning for some given the young age of this sample (ample time for relationship formation), it is crucial to recognize that single SGM youth experience barriers to relationship formation on top of common SGM-related stressors (DeHaan et al., 2013). Given the societal pressures placed on queer individuals to conform to heteronormative relationship norms, many single SGM-AFAB youth may fear further marginalization beyond what they already experience. The prospect of being romantically alone could also signal, both to themselves and others, a lack of full acceptance for their authentic self. The robust link between FOBS and mental health challenges observed in our sample emphasizes the need for further research on FOBS within marginalized communities. While our study focused on SGM youth, the implications of FOBS as a risk factor for mental health issues may extend beyond this group. The absence of non-SGM youth in our study raises questions about whether FOBS impacts mental health similarly or differently across groups. Including broader youth populations in future research could provide valuable insights into the effects of FOBS on mental health.

The impact of social support on mental health—as observed in this study— is not new (e.g., McDonald, 2018), especially for SGM youth who tend to experience loneliness, rejection, and isolation (Gattamorta et al., 2022; McDanal et al., 2023). In this study, higher levels of perceived social support were uniquely linked to lower stress and depression, even when controlling for all dimensions of singlehood and FOBS. These findings highlight the importance of support from social networks (e.g., family, friends, the SGM community) for SGM youth’s mental health.

Limitations and future directions

The current study measured FOBS only when participants reported no partnerships. However, FOBS can be experienced by both singles and non-singles (Spielmann et al., 2013). To better understand the effect of FOBS on mental health, future longitudinal studies should measure FOBS at all time points regardless of one’s partnership status.

The data were drawn from a larger study and all analyses therefore were completely exploratory. Although a longitudinal design may allow for conclusions regarding temporal relationships, ‘temporal’ should not be interpreted as ‘causal’. For that, confirmatory research better designed for causational hypothesis testing is needed. Further, despite our careful considerations, the method we used to code multiple dimensions of singlehood remained somewhat arbitrary. Additionally, we acknowledge potential concerns regarding statistical power given our modest sample size. For example, we cannot reject the possibility that some of the null interaction findings are simply a result of inadequate power to detect cross-level interaction effects. While our findings are largely consistent with prior research (Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Hostetler, 2009; Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Park et al., 2022), more robust, well-powered replication studies are essential to gain full confidence in the findings.

Finally, similar to most studies with historically underrepresented people, the findings from our restricted sample of SGM-AFAB youth may not generalize to different populations such as non-SGM and SGM youth assigned male at birth. We also did not examine the influences of other demographics/identities (e.g., race, disability) that could intersect and shape singlehood experiences.

Conclusions

Singlehood is an inherently complex construct consisting of several dimensions. Its link to mental health is anything but simple. One of the most commonly shared goals in relationship science is to ‘prevent’ singlehood by focusing on the acquirement and retention of relationships. But not all singles are victims waiting to be rescued. According to Queer Theory, singlehood and queer histories “have overlapping experiences of marginalization and expectations of living in a heteronormative society” (Lavender-Stott, 2023, p. 4). In this sample of SGM-AFAB youth, certain dimensions of singlehood (e.g., status) are associated with greater mental health problems, whereas others (e.g., length) show the opposite patterns. Interaction findings suggest that youth with low (but not high) FOBS appear to derive benefits from their prolonged singlehood duration, experiencing a reduction in mental health problems over time. Understanding the moderating role of FOBS is essential for addressing the specific fears and anxieties that can intensify the difficulties of singlehood. Moreover, given the significance of social support as a protective factor for mental health in SGM youth, educators, counselors, and stakeholders should equip them with skills to build and strengthen their social connections. Overall, we advocate for an inclusive research perspective that acknowledges the complexities of singlehood and promotes a supportive environment for SGM individuals, considering the nuances of their experiences and the contexts that shape them.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

The data used in the present manuscript were drawn from a larger research project that has resulted in other publications. This paper significantly differs from those publications in many ways. It uses a different subset of data and main variables. It also presents different aims and research questions, and thus provides a new independent scientific contribution relative to the published research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development under Grant (R01HD086170; PI: Whitton). Madison Smith’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (F32DA057128). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

Open Research Statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not publicly shared as they contain sensitive information including data from minors with marginalized identities. The data are available upon request by emailing: sarah.whitton@uc.edu. The materials used in the research are available and can be obtained at:

ORCID iDs

Val Wongsomboon

Sarah W. Whitton

Notes

References

Adamczyk

(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

Segrin

(2015). Direct and indirect effects of young adults’ relationship status on life satisfaction through loneliness and perceived social support. Psychologica Belgica, 55(4), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.bn

Adamczyk

Trepanowski

Celejewska

Kosińska

Mamot

Palczewska

Rodziejczak

(2021). The polish adaptation and further validation of the fear of being single scale (FBSS). Current Psychology, 40(5), 2499–2509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00192-2

Amos

Manalastas

E. J.

White

Bos

Patalay

(2020). Mental health, social adversity, and health-related outcomes in sexual minority adolescents: A contemporary national cohort study. The Lancet. Child amd adolescent health, 4(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30339-6

Apostolou

Wang

(2019). The association between mating performance, marital status, and the length of singlehood: Evidence from Greece and China. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 17(4), Article 1474704919887706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919887706

Ayala

Coleman

(2000). Predictors of depression among lesbian women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4(3), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v04n03_04

Baams

Bos

H. M. W.

Jonas

K. J.

(2014). How a romantic relationship can protect same-sex attracted youth and young adults from the impact of expected rejection. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.006

Barr

A. B.

Sutton

T. E.

Simons

L. G.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Lorenz

F. O.

(2016). Romantic relationship transitions and changes in health among rural, White young adults. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 30(7), 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000207

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

10.

Bühler

J. L.

Orth

Bleidorn

Weber

Kretzschmar

Scheling

Hopwood

C. J.

(2023). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 38(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219

11.

Cohen

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Sage Publications, Inc.

12.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

13.

DeHaan

Kuper

L. E.

Magee

J. C.

Bigelow

Mustanski

B. S.

(2013). The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: A mixed-methods study with lgbt youth. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489

14.

DePaulo

(2023). Single and flourishing: Transcending the deficit narratives of single life. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 15(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12525

15.

Dykstra

P. A.

(1995). Loneliness among the never and formerly married: The importance of supportive friendships and a desire for independence. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50(5), S321–S329. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/50B.5.S321

16.

Feinstein

B. A.

Latack

J. A.

Bhatia

Davila

Eaton

N. R.

(2016). Romantic relationship involvement as a minority stress buffer in gay/lesbian versus bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20(3), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2016.1147401

17.

Fisher

A. N.

Sakaluk

J. K.

(2020). Are single people a stigmatized ‘group’? Evidence from examinations of social identity, entitativity, and perceived responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, Article 103844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103844

18.

Fisher

A. N.

Stinson

D. A.

Wood

J. V.

Holmes

J. G.

Cameron

J. J.

(2021). Singlehood and attunement of self-esteem to friendships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988460

19.

Fisher

C. B.

Arbeit

M. R.

Dumont

M. S.

Macapagal

Mustanski

(2016). Self-consent for HIV prevention research involving sexual and gender minority youth: Reducing barriers through evidence-based ethics. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE, 11(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616633963

20.

Gattamorta

K. A.

Salerno

J. P.

Laporte

R. R.

(2022). Family rejection during COVID-19: Effects on sexual and gender minority stress and mental health among LGBTQ university students. LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/27703371.2022.2083041

21.

Girme

Y. U.

Park

MacDonald

(2022a). 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, 18(5), 1097–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221136119

22.

Girme

Y. U.

Sibley

C. G.

Hadden

B. W.

Schmitt

M. T.

Hunger

J. M.

(2022b). Unsupported and stigmatized? The association between relationship status and well-being is mediated by social support and social discrimination. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211030102

23.

Greitemeyer

(2009). Stereotypes of singles: Are singles what we think? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.542

24.

Hertel

Schütz

DePaulo

B. M.

Morris

W. L.

Stucke

T. S.

(2007). She’s single, so what? How are singles perceived compared with people who are married? Journal of Family Research, 19(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-301

25.

Holcomb

J. L.

Wilkerson

J. M.

Gemeinhardt

G. L.

Robison

A. J.

Schick

V. R.

(2022). A qualitative study examining the social network types of older sexual and gender minority (SGM) women and gender non-binary adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2021.1905578

26.

Hombrados-Mendieta

García-Martín

M. A.

Gómez-Jacinto

(2013). The relationship between social support, loneliness, and subjective well-being in a Spanish sample from a multidimensional perspective. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0187-5

27.

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

28.

Hostetler

A. J.

(2012). Singlehood and subjective well-being among mature gay men: The impact of family, friends, and of being “single by choice.” Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8(4), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2012.705621

29.

Jacmin-Park

Rossi

Dumont

Lupien

S. J.

Juster

R.-P.

(2022). Mental health and social support of sexual and gender diverse people from Québec, Canada during the COVID-19 crisis. LGBT Health, 9(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021.0255

30.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Amato

P. R.

(2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438

31.

Kislev

(2021). Reduced relationship desire is associated with better life satisfaction 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

32.

Kislev

(2023). Singlehood as an identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937

33.

Korchmaros

J. D.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2015). Adolescent online romantic relationship initiation: Differences by sexual and gender identification. Journal of Adolescence, 40, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.01.004

34.

Kornblith

Green

R.-J.

Casey

Tiet

(2016). Marital status, social support, and depressive symptoms among lesbian and heterosexual women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 20(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2015.1061882

35.

Laming

Lyons

Pepping

C. A.

(2023). Long-term singlehood in sexual minority adults: The role of attachment and minority stress. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(1), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00628-0

36.

Lavender-Stott

E. S.

(2023). Queering singlehood: Examining the intersection of sexuality and relationship status from a queer lens. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 15(3), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12521

37.

Lavender-Stott

E. S.

Allen

K. R.

(2023). Not alone: Family experiences across the life course of single, baby boom sexual-minority women. Family Relations, 72(1), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12721

38.

Leahy

K. E.

Chopik

W. J.

(2020). The effect of social network size and composition on the link between discrimination and health among sexual minorities. Journal of Aging and Health, 32(9), 1214–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264320908982

39.

Lipson

S. K.

Raifman

Abelson

Reisner

S. L.

(2019). Gender minority mental health in the U.S.: Results of a national survey on college campuses. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.04.025

40.

Lytle

M. C.

De Luca

S. M.

Blosnich

J. R.

(2014). The influence of intersecting identities on self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and depression among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 44(4), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12083

41.

Macapagal

Coventry

Arbeit

M. R.

Fisher

C. B.

Mustanski

(2017). “I won’t out myself just to do a survey”: Sexual and gender minority adolescents’ perspectives on the risks and benefits of sex research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1393–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0784-5

42.

Marshal

M. P.

Dermody

S. S.

Cheong

Burton

C. M.

Friedman

M. S.

Aranda

Hughes

T. L.

(2013). Trajectories of depressive symptoms and suicidality among heterosexual and sexual minority youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(8), 1243–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9970-0

43.

Marshal

M. P.

Friedman

M. S.

Stall

King

K. M.

Miles

Gold

M. A.

Bukstein

O. G.

Morse

J. Q.

(2008). Sexual orientation and adolescent substance use: A meta-analysis and methodological review. Addiction, 103(4), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02149.x

44.

McDanal

Schleider

J. L.

Fox

K. R.

Eaton

N. R.

(2023). Loneliness in gender-diverse and sexual orientation–diverse adolescents: Measurement invariance analyses and between-group comparisons. Assessment, 30(3), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211065167

45.

McDonald

(2018). Social support and mental health in lgbtq adolescents: A review of the literature. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1398283

46.

McLaughlin

Horwitz

A. V.

White

H. R.

(2002). The differential importance of friend, relative and partner relationships for the mental health of young adults. In Levy

J. A.

Pescosolido

B. A.

(Eds.), The differential importance of friend, relative and partner relationships for the mental health of young adults. (8, pp. 223–246). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-6290(02)80028-6

47.

Meyer

I. H.

(1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286

48.

Moore

S. E.

Wierenga

K. L.

Prince

D. M.

Gillani

Mintz

L. J.

(2021). Disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived social support, mental health and somatic symptoms in sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2020.1868184

49.

Moorman

J. D.

(2020). Socializing singlehood: Personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors shaping black women’s single lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320939070

50.

Muscari

E. C.

Fleming

C. E.

(2019). Help-seeking for mental health concerns: The role of partner influence. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 8(4), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000125

51.

Owens

Shrodes

Kraus

Birnholtz

Moskowitz

D. A.

Macapagal

(2023). Motivations to start and stop using sexual networking applications among adolescent sexual minority men. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(1), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00641-3

52.

Paceley

M. S.

Hwu

Arizpe

H. D.

(2017). Nonmetropolitan sexual and gender minority youths’ friendships: Perceptions of social support among SGM and non-SGM peers. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 29(4), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2017.1365674

53.

Park

Impett

E. A.

MacDonald

(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

54.

Park

Page-Gould

MacDonald

(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

55.

Pilkonis

P. A.

Choi

S. W.

Reise

S. P.

Stover

A. M.

Riley

W. T.

Cella

PROMIS Cooperative Group . (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667

56.

Sarkisian

Gerstel

(2016). Does singlehood isolate or integrate? Examining the link between marital status and ties to kin, friends, and neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515597564

57.

Schachner

D. A.

Shaver

P. R.

Gillath

(2008). Attachment style and long-term singlehood. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00211.x

58.

Simon

R. W.

Barrett

A. E.

(2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in early adulthood: Does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510372343

59.

Snapp

S. D.

Watson

R. J.

Russell

S. T.

Diaz

R. M.

Ryan

(2015). Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjustment. Family Relations, 64(3), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12124

60.

Spielmann

S. S.

MacDonald

Maxwell

J. A.

Joel

Peragine

Muise

Impett

E. A.

(2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1049–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034628

61.

Sprecher

Felmlee

(2021). Social network pressure on women and men to enter a romantic relationship and fear of being single. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 15(2), 246–261. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.6139

62.

Thomeer

M. B.

Reczek

LeBlanc

A. J.

(2021). Social biographies and health among sexual and gender minority people. In LeBlanc

A. J.

Perry

B. L.

(Eds.), Sexual and Gender Minority Health (21, pp. 135–155). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1057-629020210000021011

63.

Timonen

Doyle

(2014). Life-long singlehood: Intersections of the past and the present. Ageing and Society, 34(10), 1749–1770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000500

64.

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

65.

Watson

R. J.

Grossman

A. H.

Russell

S. T.

(2019). Sources of social support and mental health among LGB youth. Youth and Society, 51(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16660110

66.

Whitton

S. W.

Dyar

Godfrey

L. M.

Newcomb

M. E.

(2021). Within-person associations between romantic involvement and mental health among sexual and gender minorities assigned female at birth. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 35(5), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000835

67.

Whitton

S. W.

Dyar

Newcomb

M. E.

Mustanski

(2018). Romantic involvement: A protective factor for psychological health in racially-diverse young sexual minorities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000332

68.

Whitton

S. W.

Godfrey

L. M.

Crosby

Newcomb

M. E.

(2020). Romantic involvement and mental health in sexual and gender minority emerging adults assigned female at birth. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(4), 1340–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519898000

69.

Willitts

Benzeval

Stansfeld

(2004). Partnership history and mental health over time. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.58.1.53

70.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2