Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
http://psp.sagepub.com
Solitude Experiences: Varieties, Settings, and Individual Differences
Christopher R. Long, Mary Seburn, James R. Averill and Thomas A. More
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2003; 29; 578
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203029005003
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/5/578
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
10.1177/0146167203251535
PERSONALITY
Long
et al. / SOLITUDE
AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
ARTICLE
Solitude Experiences: Varieties,
Settings, and Individual Differences
Christopher R. Long
Mary Seburn
James R. Averill
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Thomas A. More
United States Forest Service Northeastern Research Station, Burlington, Vermont
sentiments of many creative people, Thoreau (1854/
1981) observed, “I never found the companion that was
so companionable as solitude” (p. 205).
Recognizing potential benefits of solitude, the Wilderness Act of 1964 (U.S. Public Law 88-577) mandated
congressionally designated wilderness areas “to preserve
natural conditions, to provide opportunities for solitude, and to provide a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation” (Shafer & Hammitt, 1995, p. 266). Although
the Wilderness Act remains fundamental to U.S. wilderness management policy, it never specified exactly what
solitude entails or how it might be experienced
(Hammitt & Madden, 1989).
Recently, psychologists, too, have become interested
in the positive aspects of solitude, particularly the opportunity it provides to engage in self-selected activities, relatively free of social encumbrances and expectations
(e.g., Burger, 1998; Larson, 1990). Such freedom, however, does not come without precondition; as Larson
(1990) suggested, the ability to profit from solitude
requires a sense of self that can survive in the absence of
immediate social reinforcement. This conceptualization
Solitude may be positive or negative, depending on situational
and personal factors. From prior research, nine types of solitude
were identified. Based on data from a questionnaire study of
undergraduate participants, factor analysis suggests that these
nine types can be reduced to three dimensions, two positive and
one negative. These are, respectively, Inner-Directed Solitude
(characterized by self-discovery and inner peace), Outer-Directed
Solitude (characterized by intimacy and spirituality), and Loneliness. Personality and value correlates, as well as situational
correlates, of the various types of solitude also were explored.
Keywords: solitude; loneliness; creativity; emotion; spirituality
Time spent alone, separate from friends, family, and
colleagues, is often experienced negatively. Loneliness,
in particular, is a serious problem for many people, and
enforced isolation (as in solitary confinement) is considered a severe punishment. Not surprisingly, much contemporary psychological research has focused on alleviating the negative effects of being alone (e.g., Ernst &
Cacioppo, 1999).
Historically, however, solitude often has been associated with beneficial outcomes, especially with spiritual
growth and creativity. Many religious leaders, including
Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed, to name but a
few, have spent a significant amount of time in solitude.
Today, as for the past few thousand years, monks and
nuns of various religious persuasions continue to
seclude themselves in collective devotional solitude, and
solitary meditation is a part of many spiritual regimens
(France, 1996). Similarly, many writers and poets, such
as Kafka, Gibbon, and Rilke, have made solitude part of
their creative regimens (cf. Storr, 1988). Expressing the
Authors’ Note: This research was supported, in part, by Grant No. 23253, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agency. Thanks are due
to Catina Smith, Allyson Delorenzo, Megan Magee, and Jenifer
Anzalone for their assistance in collecting the data and to George
Levinger for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris Long,
Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
01003; e-mail: [email protected].
PSPB, Vol. 29 No. 5, May 2003 578-583
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203251535
© 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
578
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Long et al. / SOLITUDE
is derived from Winnicott’s (1958) influential article,
“The Capacity to be Alone,” in which he posited that people who as infants were free to explore and independently occupy themselves in the security of their mothers’
presence are best able to benefit from solitude. A closely
related conceptualization of solitude by Modell (1993)
suggests that such securely attached people are free to
surrender themselves in solitude to some passionate
commitment outside the self, whether it be God, an ideology, a lover, or a creative muse. Below, we will have
more to say about the role of attachment and intimacy in
differentiating among types of solitude.
To explore further the nature of solitude, Long
(2000) asked university students to describe two solitude
episodes, one positive and the other negative, that they
had experienced within the previous year. Participants
then completed a detailed questionnaire on either the
positive or the negative experience and the descriptions
provided by the two groups were compared.
Events leading up to the positive and negative episodes were similar in important respects. For example,
both often were preceded by stress and a felt need to
examine one’s priorities. Solving a problem, contemplating the past, and hoping for the future also characterized both types of episodes. In the case of the positive
episodes, however, participants expressed a desire to be
alone and felt in control of their situation, whereas negative episodes were more often associated with involuntary aloneness. (This distinction is not as self-evident as
might at first appear; see Koch, 1994, p. 16 ff., on turning
enforced solitude to one’s advantage.) Phenomenologically, the experience of most of the negative episodes can be concisely summarized as loneliness. The
uniformity of the negative experiences is consistent with
the tendency of some theorists to treat loneliness as an
emotion in its own right (Wood, 1986). By contrast, positive experiences of solitude were more varied. Among
the benefits attributed to the positive episodes were
increased self-understanding, self-renewal, and creativity; positive episodes were rated as more spiritual than
were negative episodes.
The purpose of the present study was to examine systematically the relation among various types of solitude,
with an emphasis on differentiating among positive
experiences. A further purpose was to explore personal
and situational variables conducive to one type of solitude over another.
METHOD
Three hundred and twenty undergraduate volunteers (80% female; Mdn age = 20, range = 18 to 56)
received course credit for completing a questionnaire.
Questionnaires were distributed in psychology courses
579
and participants returned the completed questionnaires
at the next class meetings.
Solitude was defined for participants as a state of
being alone—either by oneself or, if in the presence of
others, without any social interaction (as when dining
alone in a restaurant). From the descriptions provided
by participants in the study by Long (2000) described
earlier and from previous taxonomies of privacy-related
experiences (e.g., Pedersen, 1999; Westin, 1967), nine
types of solitude were delineated. Each type was identified on the basis of the dominant feelings, activities,
and/or outcomes characteristic of an episode. Seven
types were positive: anonymity (and the freedom associated with it), creativity, inner peace, intimacy, problem
solving, self-discovery, and spirituality. One was negative
(loneliness) and one was neutral (diversion). The following is an alphabetical listing of the description of
each type as presented to participants:
• Solitude as anonymity: Because you are alone, you may act
in whatever ways you feel like at the moment, without
concern for social niceties or what others might think.
• Solitude as creativity: Being alone stimulates novel ideas or
innovative ways of expressing yourself, whether actually
in art, poetry, or intellectual pursuits, or whimsically in
daydreaming with a purpose.
• Solitude as diversion: You fill the time alone by watching
television, reading a book, surfing the Internet, or engaging in other distracting activities.
• Solitude as inner peace: While alone, you feel calm and relaxed, free from the pressures of everyday life.
• Solitude as intimacy: Although alone, you feel especially
close to someone you care about, for example, an absent
friend or lover, or perhaps a deceased relative (such as a
beloved grandparent); the absence of the person only
strengthens your feeling of closeness.
• Solitude as loneliness: You feel self-conscious, anxious, or
depressed; you long for interpersonal contact.
• Solitude as problem solving: Aloneness provides the opportunity to think about specific problems or decisions you
are facing, and you attempt to come to some resolution.
• Solitude as self-discovery: By focusing attention on yourself,
you gain insight into your fundamental values and goals
and you come to realize your unique strengths and weaknesses.
• Solitude as spirituality: While alone, you have a mystic-like
experience, for example, a sense of transcending everyday concerns, of being a part of something grander than
yourself; such experiences are sometimes interpreted
within a religious context (e.g., as being close to God)
but they also can be entirely secular (e.g., as being in harmony with a social or natural order).
Using Likert-type scales, participants rated each type
of solitude on the frequency with which it was experienced, the amount of effort they would be willing to
expend to have such an experience, and the extent of its
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
580
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
influence on their lives. To guard against order effects,
the solitude types were presented in one of three randomly assigned orders.
To assess individual differences in the capacity for, or
predisposition toward, solitude, participants also completed the following measures: (a) Depression Inventory
(Costello & Comrey, 1967): A scale used to assess
nonclinical levels of depression, which often accompanies loneliness; (b) Emotional Creativity Inventory
(Averill, 1999): An assessment of the ability of people to
be emotionally adaptive and innovative when in potentially challenging situations; (c) Experiences in Close
Relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998): An
assessment of attachment styles along two dimensions—
avoidant attachment and anxious attachment; (d) Introversion-Extraversion and Neuroticism (emotional
lability) from the Eysenck Personality Inventory
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964); (e) The Life Satisfaction
Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985): A brief
measure of global life satisfaction; (f) Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995): Presently, the only scale
designed specifically to measure a person’s proclivity for
solitude; (g) Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965): A widely
used measure of self-esteem, which presumably relates
to the capacity to benefit from solitude; (h) University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Loneliness scale (Russell, 1996): A widely used measure of dispositional loneliness; and (i) Value Survey (Schwartz, 1994): An instrument assessing 10 global values, namely, self-direction,
stimulation, hedonism, achievement, universalism,
benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, and power.
Further rationale for including certain of these individual difference variables will be discussed as results are
presented. The scales are relatively short, and the entire
questionnaire was easily completed within an hour.
RESULTS
Importance and Frequency of Solitude Types
Participants who rated a type of solitude as influential
also tended to rate it as worthy of effort, median r = .75
across the nine types of solitude. These two scales were
therefore averaged to provide a single measure of
importance.
As can be seen in Table 1, participants rated problem
solving, inner peace, and self-discovery as the three most
important types of solitude and the second, third, and
fourth most frequently experienced types, respectively.
Diversion was rated as the most frequently experienced
type of solitude but as only the fourth most important. By
contrast, loneliness and spirituality were rated as the
least important and least frequently experienced types.
If we exclude diversion, which may be used as a
defense against loneliness, then positive experiences of
TABLE 1:
Mean Ratings of Importance and Frequency for Nine
Varieties of Solitude
Solitude Type
Problem solving
Inner peace
Self-discovery
Diversion
Creativity
Anonymity
Intimacy
Spirituality
Loneliness
Importancea
Frequency
b
M
(SD)
M
(SD)
5.44
5.19
5.11
5.01
4.38
4.21
4.02
3.55
2.79
(1.36)
(1.40)
(1.50)
(1.56)
(1.79)
(1.82)
(1.98)
(2.08)
(1.52)
5.77
5.41
5.17
6.39
4.83
5.08
4.48
3.52
4.20
(1.29)
(1.53)
(1.57)
(1.15)
(1.77)
(1.89)
(2.15)
(2.16)
(1.92)
a. Mean of two scales on which seven was the highest possible rating:
One rating scale assessed the degree to which participants believed a
particular type of solitude had influenced their lives and the other assessed the likelihood participants might exert effort to experience a
particular type of solitude.
b. 1 = less than once a year, 4 = once a month, and 7 = once a week or more.
solitude were generally rated as more frequent than negative ones. Psychology’s almost exclusive emphasis on
loneliness, while understandable, seems disproportionate in light of these results. Although spirituality is a
prominent feature of classical writings on solitude, in the
present study it was rated the least frequent and least
important of all the types. Still, with a mean frequency
rating of 3.52, participants reported that a spiritual episode occurred almost once a month, indicating that it is
an aspect of everyday solitude that should not be
overlooked.
Settings for Solitude
Based on the results of the earlier qualitative study by
Long (2000), the most common settings for solitude
were grouped in three broad categories: “at home (or
dorm or apartment),” “in a public place (coffee shop,
library, museum, mall, etc.),” and “in nature (woods,
park, beach, mountains, etc.).” Participants indicated in
which of these three locations they were most likely to
experience each type of solitude. The results are presented in Table 2.
Consistent with the results of Long (2000), participants overwhelmingly reported that solitude was most
likely to occur in their own home. The only exception to
this was spirituality, which, when it did occur, was far
more likely to occur in nature (67%) than at home
(23%). A sizable minority of participants also indicated
that inner peace, self-discovery, and creativity were likely
to occur in nature (42%, 26%, and 20% for the three
types, respectively). Loneliness and creativity were the
only types of solitude judged likely to occur in public
places with any frequency (28% and 19%, respectively).
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Long et al. / SOLITUDE
TABLE 2:
Physical Setting in Which Each Type of Solitude Is Likely
to Be Experienced: Percentage Endorsing
TABLE 3:
Percentage Experienced
Solitude Type
Diversion
Anonymity
Problem solving
Intimacy
Loneliness
Self-discovery
Creativity
Inner peace
Spirituality
At Home
95
83
72
70
70
62
61
53
23
In a Public Place
4
13
11
13
28
12
19
6
10
In Nature
1
5
18
17
2
26
20
42
67
Relations Among Types of Solitude
A principal components factor analysis with oblique
rotation was performed on the nine varieties of solitude
based on their mean ratings of importance. Theoretical
considerations, as well as the scree test, suggested three
primary factors, with eigenvalues of 2.41, 1.36, and .97,
respectively (accounting for 52.68% of the total
variance).
Factor 1 suggests an inner-directed focus of attention,
with high loadings (presented here in parentheses) on
self-discovery (.73), inner peace (.68), and anonymity
(freedom from social constraints; .64). Creativity and
problem solving also loaded highly on this dimension
(.58 and .57, respectively), which suggests some degree
of inner turmoil or change. At first, the high loading of
inner peace on this factor might seem inconsistent with
turmoil and change, unless a temporal dimension is
taken into account; that is, the inconsistency is easily reconciled if inner peace is an expected consequence of
self-discovery, creativity, and problems solved.
Factor 2 consists of Loneliness (.70) and Diversion
(.67), the latter being a means of coping with loneliness.
In addition, although it loaded higher on Factor 3, intimacy loaded moderately (.45) on Factor 2. This is not
surprising because a person who feels intimate with
someone who is not present also may feel especially
lonely.
Factor 3, with high loading on intimacy (.70) and spirituality (.63), suggests an outer-directed focus and, more
specifically, a connection with others who are not physically present, be they significant others, nature, or God
(however conceived). This factor is also distinguished
from the other two by the negative loading (–.41) of anonymity, which is consistent with an outer-directed focus.
Factors 1 and 3 are positively correlated (r = .19); neither Factors 1 and 2 nor Factors 2 and 3 are significantly
correlated. This indicates that Loneliness is independent of, and not opposite to, the positive dimensions of
Variable
581
Value and Personality Scale Correlates of the Three
Dimensions of Solitude
Factor 1
(Inner-Directed)
Values
Self-direction
Universalism
Achievement
Stimulation
Hedonism
Benevolence
Security
Power
Conformity
Tradition
Personality scales
Preference for solitude
Emotional creativity
Self-esteem
Life satisfaction
Neuroticism
Loneliness
Extraversion
Avoidant attachment
Anxious attachment
Depression
Factor 2
Factor 3
(Loneliness) (Outer-Directed)
.28**
.25**
.16*
.14*
.11*
.11
.04
–.00
–.02
–.02
.05
.11
.14*
.08
.08
.06
.24**
.21**
.10
.03
.05
.20**
.14*
.02
–.00
.17**
.08
–.04
.10**
.18**
.32**
.32**
.13*
.08
.04
.02
–.03
–.12
–.15**
–.16**
.06
–.06
–.32**
–.30**
.34**
.21**
–.26**
.18**
.31**
.32**
–.05
.32**
.08
.10
.01
–.07
.10
–.19**
–.00
–.06
NOTE: Participants’ values were assessed using Schwartz’s (1994)
Value Survey. Personality variables were assessed using Burger’s (1995)
Preference for Solitude Scale; Averill’s (1999) Emotional Creativity Inventory; Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale; Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) Life Satisfaction Scale; Eysenck and
Eysenck’s (1964) Eysenck Personality Inventory; the University of California, Los Angeles, Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996); Brennan, Clark,
and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in Close Relationships Scale; and
Costello and Comrey’s (1967) Depression Inventory.
*p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.
solitude. Stated differently, a person can be prone to be
lonely (or not lonely) and creative at the same time, say,
or prone to be lonely (or not lonely) and spiritual at the
same time.
Bartlett’s factor scores were calculated for each participant. The correlations between these factor scores and
the individual difference variables are presented in
Table 3. As can be seen from the top half of Table 3, the
correlations between the factor scores and Schwartz’s
value survey support the interpretation of the three
dimensions discussed earlier. Specifically, Factor 1
(Inner-Directed Solitude) is related to individualistic values, such as self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism.
Factor 3 (Outer-Directed Solitude) is related to more
collectivist values, such as tradition and benevolence.
Both Factors 1 and 3 are related to the values of universalism and achievement, consistent with the fact that
these two dimensions are not independent, at least as
based on the measures used in this study. Finally, Factor 2
(Loneliness) is related to the values of security and
power, both of which may be thwarted during solitude.
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
582
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
TABLE 4:
Stepwise Regression of Individual Difference Variables on
Factor Scores
Predictor
Factor 1 (Inner-Directed
Solitude)
Emotional creativity
Preference for solitude
Anxious attachment
Factor 2 (Loneliness)
Neuroticism
Self-esteem
Extraversion
Factor 3 (Outer-Directed
Solitude)
Emotional creativity
Multiple
Correlation
Beta
(standardized)
p
R = .48
.33
.28
–.15
.000
.000
.004
.21
–.19
–.13
.001
.003
.028
.31
.000
R = .40
R = .31
NOTE: Variables included as possible predictors in the stepwise procedure included preference for solitude, emotional creativity, selfesteem, life satisfaction, neuroticism, loneliness, extraversion, avoidant
attachment, anxious attachment, and depression.
With respect to the bottom half of Table 3, the ability
to be emotionally creative and a preference for solitude
were the variables most highly associated with InnerDirected Solitude (Factor 1). Emotional creativity, but
not preference for solitude, also was related to OuterDirected Solitude (Factor 3). Neuroticism, low selfesteem, dissatisfaction with life, and predispositions
toward depression and loneliness were the variables
most closely associated with Loneliness (Factor 2). Perhaps surprisingly, introversion (the inverse of extraversion) also was associated with Loneliness.
Stereotypically, the introvert is less in need of the company of others than an extravert is; on the other hand,
introversion is also more associated with negative affect,
perhaps including loneliness.
Concerning attachment style, Winnicott (1958),
Modell (1993), and others suggest that people who are
securely attached (low avoidance and low anxiety toward
close relationships) would experience solitude positively, whereas people who are insecurely attached (high
avoidance and high anxiety toward close relationships)
would experience solitude negatively. Their prediction
was confirmed: The four statistically significant attachment-related correlations are in the expected direction
(although only one, that between anxious attachment
and the Loneliness factor, r =.31, is substantial).
The personality variables listed in the bottom half of
Table 3 are not independent of one another (e.g.,
neuroticism is related to low self-esteem, depression,
and insecure attachment styles). Therefore, stepwise
regression analyses were performed to identify the best
predictors for each of the three factors. The results are
presented in Table 4. Emotional creativity was the best
predictor of both Inner-Directed and Outer-Directed
Solitude, and neuroticism was the best predictor of solitude as Loneliness. The Preference for Solitude Scale
also predicted Inner-Directed Solitude. Anxious attachment was negatively related to Inner-Directed Solitude,
and self-esteem and extraversion were negatively related
to solitude as loneliness. For all three dimensions, the
multiple correlations were substantial.
DISCUSSION
As human beings, we are social by nature. An isolated
person, with few means of natural defense, would not
survive for long “in the wild.” Not surprisingly, then, we
seek and enjoy the company of others, and we may go to
great lengths to avoid being alone. But too much
sociality can be oppressive. We need time alone as a relief
from social stressors, an opportunity for reflection and
insight, and a chance for personal, spiritual, and creative
development (e.g., Burger, 1998; Koch, 1994).
As shown in the present study, solitude is not a unitary
phenomenon. The three dimensions of solitude identified in this study (i.e., Inner- and Outer-Directed Solitude, and Loneliness) appear to be empirically robust
and theoretically sound. Not only were they identifiable
through factor analysis but they also showed easily interpretable relations with the values people hold. However,
the identification of these dimensions raises a significant
question: What determines which type of solitude will be
experienced in a given episode? In the present study, we
addressed this question with at least two types of variables: the situational and the personal.
With respect to situational variables, one’s home (or
one’s dorm or apartment) was regarded as the most common setting for solitude of all types. This is almost trivially inevitable because most university students’ time is
spent in this setting. More interesting is the finding that
nature also was considered conducive to both inner- and
outer-directed types of solitude, especially to spirituality
and inner peace. Few participants considered nature to
be a place of loneliness. This may be due, in part, to the
fact that people seldom find themselves alone in nature
except by choice. Volition is a major determinant that
tips the balance between positive and negative experiences of solitude (Long, 2000). But the aesthetic and
awe-inspiring qualities of the natural environment
undoubtedly also play a role in contributing to positive
experiences (e.g., Hammitt & Madden, 1989).
With respect to personal variables, Larson,
Csikszentmihalyi, and Graef (1982) have compared solitude to an “ecological niche” (p. 40). Similar to an ecological niche, solitude offers potential opportunities and
dangers, either of which may be realized depending on
the characteristics of the particular person attempting to
thrive there. For researchers attempting to identify personal characteristics associated with thriving in solitude,
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Long et al. / SOLITUDE
it is noteworthy that the Preference for Solitude Scale—
the only scale designed explicitly to measure individual
differences in the capacity for solitude—relates primarily to Inner-Directed Solitude (self-discovery, etc.) and
not to Outer-Directed Solitude (intimacy and spirituality). On the other hand, the capacity to be emotionally
creative was an important predictor of both Inner- and
Outer-Directed experiences of Solitude. Openness to
unusual emotional experiences—and openness toward
the social “rules” that govern how we interpret our emotions and other experiences in general—are likely to be
among the adaptive characteristics required to thrive
when confronted by solitude’s relative reduction of
immediate social stimulation.
Against the background of an ever-increasing global
population, the present research explores only one small
segment of the socially oriented (although ostensibly
“individualistic”) American society. As solitude becomes
perhaps even more precious, the study of solitude could
usefully be extended to include not only a more diverse
sample of people in terms of age and life experiences but
also to a broader range of cultural environments. If that
were done, we predict that the major categories identified here (Inner-Directed, Outer-Directed, and Loneliness) would remain intact, although other dimensions
might be added and the proportion of experiences falling in each category might vary.
As we have noted, psychologists have largely
neglected to study solitude; however, in light of the obvious survival value of humans’ evolved needs for sociality
and attachment, people’s desire to spend time alone
presents an intriguing puzzle. Much fascinating work
remains in further delineating the processes that govern
our experiences of solitude, which, in the words of two of
our research participants, can range from a “feeling that
drains you of positivity” to a comforting “blanket of mental warmth.”
REFERENCES
Averill, J. R. (1999). Individual differences in emotional creativity:
Structure and correlates. Journal of Personality, 67, 331-371.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measures of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J.
583
A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85-108.
Burger, J. M. (1998). Solitude. In Encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. 3,
pp. 563-569). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Costello, C. G., & Comrey, A. L. (1967). Scales for measuring depression and anxiety. Journal of Psychology, 66, 303-313.
Diener, E., Emmons, A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale: A measure of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological
perspectives on loneliness. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 8, 1-22.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press.
France, P. (1996). Hermits: The insights of solitude. New York: St.
Martin’s.
Hammitt, W. E., & Madden, M. A. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of
wilderness privacy: A field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences, 11, 293-301.
Koch, P. (1994). Solitude: A philosophical encounter. Chicago: Open
Court.
Larson, R. W. (1990). The solitary side of life: An examination of the
time people spend alone from childhood to old age. Developmental
Review, 10, 155-183.
Larson, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone in
daily experience: Loneliness or renewal? In L. A. Peplau & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research,
and therapy (pp. 40-53). New York: John Wiley.
Long, C. R. (2000). A comparison of positive and negative episodes of solitude. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Modell, A. (1993). The private self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pedersen, D. M. (1999). Model for types of privacy functions. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 19, 323-333.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
20-40.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
Shafer, C. S., & Hammitt, W. E. (1995). Congruency among experience dimensions, condition indicators, and coping behaviors in
wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 17, 263-279.
Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York: Ballantine.
Thoreau, H. D. (1981). Walden. In J. W. Krutch (Ed.), Walden and other
writings by Henry David Thoreau (pp. 105-341). New York: Bantam.
(Original work published 1854)
Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Winnicott, D. (1958). The capacity to be alone. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 39, 416-420.
Wood, L. A. (1986). Loneliness. In R. Harré (Ed.), The social construction of emotions (pp. 184-208). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Received August 27, 2001
Revision accepted September 5, 2002
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008
© 2003 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.