nature of the social needs change (e.g., during early adolescence, needs for intimacy emerge), as well as the type of relationship required to fulfill the needs (e.g., same‐sex chumships or best friendships might satisfy needs for intimacy that emerge in early adolescence). Regardless of the developmental changes, however, Sullivan argued that if social needs were not fulfilled, significant negative self‐system and psychological consequences would ensue. Consistent with these latter ideas are research findings that have identified loneliness, at any age, as one of the strongest risk factors for psychological ill‐being (Erzen & Cikrikci, 2018). That said, there is some indication that effects of loneliness on psychological and physical health and well‐being may be the greatest among the oldest adults, which again suggests that developmental period might matter.
Clearly the debate as to “when” in development solitude might carry the greatest costs is yet to be resolved. Indeed, theoretical speculations in this area have outpaced the empirical work. However, it must also be acknowledged that the very nature of solitary experiences likely change with age. For example, young children may retreat to their rooms, engage in solitary play in the company of peers, or find themselves forced to the periphery of social groups. Although externally imposed solitude might manifest similarly at older ages (e.g., adolescents being forced to hang out alone after school; adults being left out of work luncheons and gatherings), adolescents and adults have greater control over and increased opportunities for self‐selected solitary experiences relative to children. For example, adolescents are sometimes left alone without parental supervision in their homes or are able to take themselves to places of their choosing. Adults can also choose to travel alone, engage in meditative and religious retreats, and can sometimes select relatively solitary occupations and ways to spend their free time. In contrast, there may come a time in the life of an older adult where they are significantly impeded in their ability to actively seek out social contacts. It remains to be seen how these potential differences in agency pertaining to solitude across the life span speak to the relation between solitude and well‐being. Taken together, though, a thorough examination of the positive and negative faces of solitude must be undertaken with a developmental lens.
Culture.
The more that we learn about the complex nature of solitude, the more we also come to realize that the meaning and impact of spending time alone must be considered within a broader cultural context. There is considerable variation across cultures in attitudes and beliefs regarding aspects of solitude (Buttrick et al., 2019). It is tempting to apply the notion of goodness of fit (Thomas & Chess, 1977) as a simple way to explain differences in the meaning and implications of solitude across societies and cultures. That is, if solitude is generally valued or even encouraged within a given culture, then the choice to spend time alone might be relatively adaptative, and thus, associated with more positive outcomes because it matches or is consistent with cultural values and norms. However, and perhaps not surprisingly given the complex and multidimensional nature of solitude, it appears that the impacts of culture on the causes and consequences of solitude are extremely complex and nuanced.
For example, there is some evidence to suggest that extraversion is more strongly predictive of well‐being in Western cultures (particularly North America) than in non‐Western cultures, because of the high value placed on being outgoing and sociable in these societies (Kim et al., 2016). Similarly, shyness more strongly predicts indices of negative life quality in Western as compared to East Asian cultures (Rapee et al., 2011). As well, because of the value placed on sociability in the West, children who play alone in the presence of peers (e.g., at preschool or in the schoolyard) tend to evoke negative responses from their classmates (Coplan et al., 2013; Hart et al., 2000).
Yet, Western cultures are thought to also value independence and self‐reliance (Marjoribanks, 1994). In this regard, the personal choice to spend time alone appears to be acknowledged as a normative belief in such societies (Bowker et al., 2020), and in and of itself, a non‐fearful preference for solitude is relatively accepted by others (Nelson, 2013). However, in other cultures (e.g., China) that value devotion to interdependence and the collective (e.g., peer group) over the individual, the decision to remove oneself from the collective (for any reason) may be viewed as selfish and deviant (Chen, 2019), and responded to quite negatively (Liu et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Nelson et al., 2012). But, it has also been argued that East Asian cultures place greater value and are more likely to encourage humble and socially unassertive behaviors, because they maintain group harmony and promote collectivistic values (Schreier et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2007). Finally, it should be noted that not all Western cultures view sociability in the same way. For example, Finish culture places a high value on quietness and the ability to be “comfortable in silence” (Berry et al., 2004, p. 270).
These are just a few examples of the complexities involved in considering aspects of solitude across cultures. It is only in understanding the cultural context for why a solitary behavior may be seen as adaptive or problematic that we begin to see the situation clearly and accurately. Thus, we need to be cautious about broadly categorizing certain forms of solitude as either “good” or “bad” when, instead, it is really only by understanding the cultural context within which the solitary behavior is enacted that we that we can begin to understand why the behavior may be perceived positively or negatively, and more importantly, how it may lead to positive or negative outcomes in the lives of individuals.
Technology and social media.
Finally, beyond culture, there is another context that is reshaping how we think about solitude. Today, people’s social interactions are not limited to face‐to‐face encounters or to speaking on the telephone. Instead, technological advances have made computer‐mediated communication not only possible but prevalent in our daily lives. Indeed, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tic Toc, FaceTime, Skype, text messaging, and numerous other platforms for computer‐mediated communication had become part of the everyday world that has expanded the way we interact on a daily basis.
As a result of this, it is absolutely essential that we examine what solitude means in this digital context. For example, there is no real consensus about at what point increasingly interactive technologies would render someone as no longer “alone” (i.e., scrolling through social media feeds vs. commenting and responding to posts vs. exchanging texts in real time vs. direct audio communication vs. direct audio‐visual communication). Indeed, for decades, scholars have examined individual differences in tendencies (both motivations and actual behaviors) to move toward or away from interactions in social settings. Now, the digital world in which we live demands that we expand our research to examine the meaning and impact of moving toward or away from social interaction in technologically mediated contexts.
Emerging work is already pointing to individual differences in, among other things, the use of connective forms of media (forms of media that have the potential to connect individuals to others such as e‐mail; Nelson et al., 2016), the extent of interaction that occurs when using digital forms of communication (e.g., how people interact on social media; Scott et al., 2018), and the role of technology in maintaining relationships (e.g., use and content of text messages between friends and romantic partners; e.g., Rideout & Robb, 2018). Just as we can identify meaning and outcomes associated with withdrawing from in‐person settings, we are starting to see that there is meaning and impact to be found in what it means to engage in solitude in the context of a digitally connected world. For example, emerging work is showing that individual differences in whether and how (i.e., competently or not) a person engages in computer‐based interactions can be linked to indices of adjustment and maladjustment (e.g., empathy, loneliness, self‐esteem, prosocial behaviors, aggression; Brody, 2018; Kim & Lee, 2011; Lapierre, 2020; Nelson et al., 2016). Taken together, it is impossible to approach a volume devoted to understanding the meaning and impact of solitude in contexts without examining it in the digital age in which we now live.
