solitude has a very complex relationship with well‐being (Coplan et al., 2018). In trying to decipher these complexities, researchers have started to focus on the different causes of solitude, and how those causes contribute to different consequences of being alone. As well, we are just beginning to understand how contextual factors might impact the pathways linking the causes and consequences of solitude. In this regard, these approaches ask how, for whom, and under what circumstances, do experiences of solitude differentially contribute to costs and benefits of well‐being?
Looking Around: A Conceptual Model of the Causes and Consequences of Solitude
There is a myriad of factors that serve to mediate, moderate, and complicate how solitude impacts our well‐being (Coplan et al., 2018). In Figure 1.1, we have attempted to synthesize these postulations into a broad conceptual model stipulating that: (1) there are different causal mechanisms that underlie our experiences of solitude; (2) these different “reasons” for spending time alone affect the implications of solitude for well‐being; and (3) these processes are nested within contexts that serve to further modulate the nature of these associations.
First, it is important to distinguish between instances where individuals are spending time alone as a result of external processes, motivations to avoid others, or motivations to approach solitude. External processes impose solitude upon the individual. Under these circumstances, regardless of personal inclinations, experiences of ostracism, exclusion, rejection, and/or victimization result in social isolation (Rubin, 1982). Not surprisingly, this unwanted solitude has negative consequences, from mundane discomfort (e.g., boredom; Wilson et al., 2014) to painful loneliness (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008), as well as contributing to declines in both mental (e.g., depression; Williams & Nida, 2011) and physical health (e.g., cardiovascular disease; Valtorta et al., 2018). Indeed, social isolation and loneliness are now considered to be risk factors for mortality (Holt‐Lunstad et al., 2015).
In other cases, individuals may seek to remove themselves from opportunities for social interaction (and thus end up in solitude) as a means of avoiding social contexts perceived as stressful or unpleasant. This process has been referred to as social withdrawal (Rubin et al., 2009) and we construe it herein as solitude seeking motivated by the desire to avoid others. For example, from a motivational perspective, shyness has been conceptualized as arising from an approach‐avoidance conflict (Asendorpf, 1990), whereby the wish to affiliate with others (high social approach motivation) is simultaneously inhibited by social fear and socio‐evaluative concerns (Coplan et al., 2004). In this regard, although shy individuals’ solitude may be self‐imposed, it is also predominantly unwelcome, and can lead to emotional distress, rumination, and anxiety (Nelson, 2013). Indeed, extreme shyness in children is now widely considered to be one of the most robust and consistent predictors of the development of clinical anxiety disorders (Clauss & Blackford, 2012).
In yet other cases, although it is widely accepted that the simple act of engaging in social interactions makes us happier (Epley & Schroeder, 2014), some individuals are higher in social anhedonia, reflecting a reduced capacity to derive pleasure from social interactions (Blanchard et al., 2000). This can lead to increased solitude because of feelings of sadness and lethargy (Coplan et al., 2015), and ultimately more serious personality and depressive disorders (Brown et al., 2007). As an aside, it is also important to note that transactional processes are likely occurring in terms of the interplay between the external process of social isolation and the internal motivation to avoid others (as depicted in Figure 1.1 via a dotted line with arrows on both ends). For example, withdrawing from opportunities for social interaction may invite ostracism from others, which in turn may heighten the desire to subsequently avoid social interaction, and so on… (Ren et al., 2015; Rubin & Mills, 1988).
These scenarios all share the commonality that individuals in these groups are engaging in solitude for reasons that are reactive. It is also important to consider individuals who are more proactive in their selection of solitude. In such instances, individuals are not retreating to solitude as a means of avoiding social interactions, but instead are approaching solitude as a desired and positive context. As mentioned previously, a key determining factor in how we experience solitude is whether it is sought out because of an intrinsic (i.e., autonomous, self‐directed) motivation (Chua & Koestner, 2008). A number of related terms have been used to describe individual differences in the non‐fearful desire for spending time alone, including unsociability (Coplan & Weeks, 2010), social disinterest (Coplan et al., 2004), affinity for aloneness (Goossens, 2014), solitropic orientation (Leary et al., 2003), and preference for solitude (Burger, 1995). An affinity for solitude is also a component of the broader personality dimension of introversion‐extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).
Figure 1.1 Theroretical Model of the Causes and Consequences of solitude.
Generally speaking, when solitude is chosen, spending time alone is viewed more positively and is associated with more positive outcomes, including self‐regulation, stress reduction, and restoration (Berman et al., 2008; Leung, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2018). It has also been argued that spending time alone can foster self‐growth (Long et al., 2003), spirituality (Hay & Morisey, 1978), and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). However, it must also be noted that, regardless of the underlying reason, choosing to spend time alone can sometimes be viewed negatively by others and lead to rejection and ostracism (Coplan et al., 2013). Thus, even when affording benefits, spending time in solitude can sometimes also come at a cost.
As we have described, the different causes of solitude have clear implications for the potential consequences of spending time alone. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the nature of these associations is even more complicated than we thought. This is because contextual effects (e.g., developmental period, culture, technology) can also alter the magnitude – and even the direction – of the links between solitude and indices of well‐being.
Looking Forward: Solitude in Context
Development.
One contextual factor that has received considerable theoretical attention is developmental period (see Coplan, Ooi, et al., 2019, for a recent review). Indeed, researchers have long theorized that the risks associated with solitude might depend on the developmental period studied (e.g., early childhood versus middle childhood versus adolescence). In this regard, the costs of solitude are often assumed to be greater during childhood relative to adolescence and adulthood – given the widely held notion that the young developing child requires a significant amount of positive peer interaction for healthy social, emotional, and social‐cognitive development and well‐being (Rubin et al., 2015). In addition, it is during adolescence that increasing needs for and enjoyment of privacy and solitude are thought to emerge (Larson, 1990). For this reason, it has been posited that some of the negative peer consequences often associated with social withdrawal during childhood, such as peer rejection and peer victimization, may diminish during the adolescent developmental period (Bowker et al., 2016).
However, it has also long been argued that the costs of childhood solitude may accumulate over time and that solitude at any age can foster loneliness and psychological angst, particularly if it is externally imposed. As mentioned previously, social needs are thought to exist in individuals of all ages, with several theories suggesting that psychological well‐being is determined by whether social needs are satisfied. For example, Sullivan (1953) posited that all
