The section then concludes by reminding us once again that context matters in our understanding of solitude. Xu and colleagues (Chapter 21) make it poignantly clear that solitude may be experienced uniquely for immigrants who have to constantly deal with the negative biases and stereotypes associated with foreign languages and accents, experiences of acculturation, perpetual foreigner stereotypes, and intergroup anxiety between immigrant and non‐immigrant groups. Taken together, this section provides a clear reminder that to understand solitude’s meaning and impact, we must consider a variety of constructs (e.g., motivations, needs, ostracism), contexts (e.g., peer group, media, sports), and outcomes (e.g., creativity, loneliness, rest, anxiety) related to solitude.
The fourth section of the book focuses on the strong, and oftentimes complicated links between solitude and mental health. Although several chapters in the earlier sections describe findings pertaining to solitude and psychological outcomes, the chapters in this section are unique in their special emphasis not only on individual characteristics (including specific psycho‐social difficulties), but also on contexts that can influence when solitude leads to mental health difficulties and psychopathology or confer benefits. In the first chapter in this section, Zelenski, Sobocko, and Whelan (Chapter 22) explore commonly held beliefs about the links between introversion, extraversion, and happiness. Korpela and Staats (Chapter 23) describe the ways in which time spent in nature can be restorative for mental health and well‐being. Leavitt, Butzer, Clarke, and Dvorakova (Chapter 24) provide a detailed discussion about the importance of solitude during the increasingly popular and therapeutic practice of mindfulness meditation. The next two chapters return to a consideration of timely and important individual characteristics related to solitude, with a focus on autism by Baczewski and Kasari (Chapter 25) and social anxiety disorder by Alden and Fung (Chapter 26). The remaining chapters in this section focus on unique contexts that profoundly impact, for better or worse, experiences of solitude and aloneness and their associations with mental health. Wong and Li (Chapter 27) offer in‐depth cultural analysis of hikikomori, a phenomenon first discovered in Japan wherein individuals retreat into solitude in their residences for six months or longer, with an emphasis on a novel intervention effort in Hong Kong. In the final chapter in this section, Haney (Chapter 28) examines the unique context of solitary confinement within the United States’ prison system, with a fascinating discussion of the ways in different aspects of context (the larger prison system, the nature of solitary confinement) come together to lead to considerable suffering and psychopathology in an already vulnerable population of inmates. Taken together, the chapters highlight the important contributions of both the individual and the context for research and clinical intervention and prevention efforts.
In the final chapter of the book, we are extremely pleased to include a unique and personal historical perspective on the genesis of a central research area related to solitude. In this chapter, Kenneth Rubin (Chapter 29) describes the development of his innovative and highly influential research program on social withdrawal during childhood. This seminal work began in the 1970s with the novel notion that if children and adolescent benefit from social interactions, relationships, and group involvement, youth who fail to interact with peers might struggle considerably across numerous domains. This initial idea proved to be correct, and as a result, led to the creation of a brand‐new area of research, childhood social withdrawal, of which Rubin is widely regarded as a founder. The three editors of this handbook were all fortunate to work with Ken as his graduate students, an experience for which we are eternally grateful. Thus, it is fitting that we conclude this handbook with his deeply personal account of his research career as it not only influenced our research careers but also the research careers of many of the authors in this book and those who will be reading this handbook as graduate students or senior academics.
Concluding Thoughts: Getting Solitude “Just Right”
As we have seen, we still have much to learn about the nature of the complex links between solitude and well‐being. Moving forward, we would assert that we should aim for balance in this discussion. That is, solitude is not a one size fit all phenomenon – and as a result – we should be careful how we advocate its implementation. As an example of how to think about the implementation of such a complex construct, Coplan, Zelenski, and Bowker (2018) likened the effects of solitude on well‐being to spending time in direct sunlight. In this regard, experiencing at least some sunlight on a regular basis is probably good for all of us (e.g., source of vitamin D), but also particularly important for some of us (e.g., those with Seasonal Affective Disorder). However, the optimal time that we spend in the sun differs across individuals (e.g., some people get sunburned more easily than others), and chronic overexposure puts all of us at increased risk for negative consequences (e.g., melanoma).
Importantly, this suggests that there are potentially negative implications for both getting too much solitude – but also – and importantly – for not getting enough solitude (Coplan, Hipson et al., 2019). Ultimately, it appears that our experiences of solitude may be subject to the Goldilocks Hypothesis. As it applied to bowls of chairs, porridge, and beds, the Goldilocks Hypothesis asserts that there is an optimal amount (“just right”) of exposure to certain circumstances or experiences for positive effects to occur that is specific to each individual (e.g., Coplan et al., 2019; Kagan, 1990; Kidd et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017). Accordingly, the chapters in this handbook have helped shed light on the biological, environmental (e.g., family, peers), and contextual (e.g., culture) factors that contribute to what determines the amount and type of solitude that is “just right” for any individual.
Indeed, we would like to thank the contributing authors for their thought‐provoking and insightful chapters. We hope that the content of the volume will be of benefit to readers who are trying to utilize the potential benefits in their own lives. Also, we are hopeful that the chapters will further stimulate research related to our understanding of the causes and consequences of solitude.
References
1 American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1st edition). Washington, DC.
2 Asendorpf, J.B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250–259.
3 Barash, D.P. (1977). Sociobiology and Behavior. New York: Elsevier.
4 Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
5 Berman, M.G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.
6 Berry, M., Carbaugh, D., & Nurmikari‐Berry, M. (2004). Communicating Finnish quietude: a pedagogical process for discovering implicit cultural meanings in languages. Language and Intercultural Communication, 4, 209–228.
7 Blanchard, J.J., Gangestad, S.W., Brown, S.A., & Horan, W.P. (2000). Hedonic capacity and schizotypy revisited: a taxometric analysis of social anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 87–95.
8 Bowker, J.C., Ooi, L.L., Coplan, R.J., & Etkin, R.G. (2020). When is it okay to be alone? Gender differences in normative beliefs about social withdrawal.
