It should also be noted that there is little consensus among researchers as to how solitude should be conceptualized, operationalized, and assessed. For example, some perspectives emphasize physical separation from others, although in some cases this becomes operationalized in varied ways. For example, participants might be required simply to sit and think away from others (Wilson et al., 2014), whereas in other studies the focus is on activities while participants are physically alone (Leary et al., 2003). Of note, there is really no agreed‐upon physical “distance” from others that is mandated in order for an individual to be considered alone. Other perspectives focus on perceived separation from others (Larson, 1990). In this regard, participants might report feeling alone and lonely even in the presence of others (van Roekel et al., 2015). Coplan and Bowker (2017) described this conceptual distinction as solitude representing a state of mind rather than a state of being. Finally, as we will discuss later, contemporary technology now makes it possible (and common) for us to be physically alone but in the virtual presence of – and interacting with – many others (Hollis et al., 2020).
These different conceptualizations of solitude highlight the many different “faces” of solitude. In 2014, the Handbook of Solitude was the first academic volume to specifically focus on the diverse theoretical and empirical approaches to the psychological study of solitude. Since that time, there has been considerable advancement in our understanding of solitude, with novel and exciting research focusing on previously unconsidered aspects of being alone. In this second edition of the Handbook, we are absolutely thrilled to present a blend of new and updated chapters that approach the study of solitude from a myriad of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches, and with critically important applications for practice and policy.
In this introductory chapter, we revisit some of the critical historical components of the study of solitude, consider some of the novel issues that have emerged in recent years, and describe a broad theoretical model of the causes and consequences of solitude. We finish the chapter with an overview of the novel and updated contents of this new volume.
Looking Back: Solitude as Bad vs. Good
As noted above, there remain competing hypotheses regarding the nature of solitude and its implications for well‐being. Indeed, these fundamentally opposed differential characterizations of solitude represent the most pervasive theme in the historical study of solitude as a psychological construct. From its early roots through to today, researchers have sought to depict and portray solitude as inherently “bad” versus “good.” As we will see, these attempts to singularly define the implications of solitude for well‐being as an either/or dichotomy appear to represent an oversimplification of what has emerged as a much more complex phenomenon.
The notion that solitude has negative consequences has a long history and can literally be traced back to biblical times (Genesis 2:18, And the LORD God said “It is not good for the man to be alone”). For example, from an evolutionary perspective, solitude is maladaptive because social affiliations are essential to the survival of the human species, offering protection against predators, cooperative hunting, and food sharing (Barash, 1977; Hamilton, 1964; Trivers, 1971). Notwithstanding, many theorists and researchers have also long called attention to positive aspects of being alone (Middleton, 1935; Merton, 1958; Zimmerman, 1805; for a review, see Long & Averill, 2003). For example, over 300 years ago, Montaigne (1685) argued that individuals should strive for experiences of solitude not only as a respite from societal pressures, but also to free themselves from dogma, conventional ways of thinking, and the power of the group. This highlights two domains that have endured as consistently ascribed benefits to spending time alone, namely that solitude is an important and unique context for restoration (Staats & Hartig, 2004) and personal growth (Maslow, 1968).
Historical theoretical arguments regarding the costs and benefits of solitude have come from a wide range of psychological perspectives. For example, developmental psychologists have asserted that excessive solitude during childhood can cause psychological pain and suffering (Freud, 1930), damage critically important family relationships (Harlow, 1958), impede the development of the self‐system (Mead, 1934), and prevent children from learning from their peers (Piaget, 1926). Yet, other developmentalists have espoused the notion that solitude provides a facilitating environment for psychological maturity, self‐discovery, and self‐realization, particularly during critical periods for development such as infancy/early childhood (Winnicott, 1958) and adolescence (Larson, 1990).
Social psychologists consider affiliation with others to be a basic human need (Horney, 1945; Shipley & Veroff, 1952), and the failure to meet this need to belong can have profoundly negative implications for well‐being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Yet, social psychologists also argue that when solitude is autonomously motivated (i.e., derived from finding value or interest in the activity, Deci & Ryan, 2000), it is experienced more positively and can serve as a context for self‐regulation, stress reduction, and restoration (Berman et al., 2008; Leung, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2018).
From the perspective of clinical psychology, social isolation has been traditionally viewed as a target criterion for intervention (Lowenstein & Svendsen, 1938), and as a symptom of several psychological disorders (DSM‐I; APA, 1952). Yet, it has also been suggested that creativity and artistic talents may develop in response to long periods of painful social isolation (Middleton, 1935; Storr, 1988; Thoreau, 1854).
Contemporary approaches to the psychology of solitude now acknowledge that time alone is neither inherently good nor bad, and that 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)