The Handbook of Solitude E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1321

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

This reference work offers a comprehensive compilation of current psychological research related to the construct of solitude * Explores numerous psychological perspectives on solitude, including those from developmental, neuropsychological, social, personality, and clinical psychology * Examines different developmental periods across the lifespan, and across a broad range of contexts, including natural environments, college campuses, relationships, meditation, and cyberspace * Includes contributions from the leading international experts in the field * Covers concepts and theoretical approaches, empirical research, as well as clinical applications

Leseprobe

Contents

List of Contributors

Foreword: On Solitude, Withdrawal, and Social Isolation

Part I : Theoretical Perspectives

1 All Alone: Multiple Perspectives on the Study of Solitude

Emergent Themes

Overview of This Handbook

Final Comments: Solitude…Together?

References

2 Studying Withdrawal and Isolation in the Peer Group: Historical Advances in Concepts and Measures

Social Withdrawal and Isolation Have Always Been with Us

Withdrawal and Isolation Go Underground and Then Come Back from a Different Direction

The Entry into the Current Era: The Late 1980s and 1990s

Summary/What’s Past Is Prologue

References

3 An Attachment Perspective on Loneliness

Basic Concepts of Attachment Theory and Research

Attachment-Related Differences in Interpersonal Interactions and Close Relationships

Attachment Insecurities and Feelings of Loneliness

Cognitive Mechanisms Mediating the Attachment–Loneliness Link

Concluding Remarks

References

4 Shyness and the Electrical Activity of the Brain: On the Interplay between Theory and Method

Shyness: Definition and Conceptual Framework

On the Interplay between Theory and Method: Frontal EEG Asymmetry and Social Behavior

Summary and Limitations

Conclusions and Caveats

Acknowledgements

References

5 The Origins of Solitude: Psychoanalytic Perspectives

Fear of Solitude and Separation Anxiety

The Solitary Self

The Capacity to Be Alone

Companions in Solitude

Conclusions and Future Directions: The Primacy of the Paradox

References

6 Experiences of Solitude: Issues of Assessment, Theory, and Culture

Stories We Tell Ourselves about Being Alone

Assessment: Types of Solitude Experiences

Expanding the List of Solitude Experiences

Dimensions of Solitude

Differences between Chinese and American Participants

Toward a Cognitive Theory of Solitude

Designer Environments

The Cognitive Structure of Solitude

The Chinese Tradition of Eremitism

Vicarious Solitude

Solitude as a Cultural Resource

Concluding Observations

Notes

References

Part II : Solitude Across the Lifespan

7 The Causes and Consequences of “Playing Alone” in Childhood

Nonsocial Play: Concepts and Theories

Reticent Behavior: “I want to play with you…but I am shy…”

Solitary-Active Behaviors: “You don’t want to play with me?”

Solitary-Passive Behaviors: “I’m ok playing by myself…for now…”

Playing Alone: Mitigating Factors and Future Directions

Conclusion

References

8 Peer Rejection in Childhood: Social Groups, Rejection Sensitivity, and Solitude

Foundation and Effects of Group Membership

Peer Group Rejection and Its Effects

Accounting for Occasional Peer Rejection and Its Effects

Peer Group Rejection and Interpersonal Aggression

Peer Group Rejection and Intergroup Prejudice

Accounting for Chronic Peer Group Rejection and Its Effects

Rejection Sensitivity and Children

Summary and Conclusion

References

9 Affinity for Aloneness in Adolescence and Preference for Solitude in Childhood: Linking Two Research Traditions

Playing Alone in Childhood and Its Underlying Motives

Wanting to Be Alone in Adolescence and Its Adaptive Functions

Testing Key Assumptions of the Affinity for Aloneness Construct

Future Prospects

Acknowledgments

References

10 Social Withdrawal during Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

Developmental Periods of Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

Correlates and Consequences of Social Withdrawal in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

Conclusion

References

11 Introversion, Solitude, and Subjective Well-Being

Overview of Introversion–Extraversion

A Closer Look at the Links Between Introversion and Happiness

Why Does Introversion–Extraversion Predict Happiness?

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

References

12 Social Approach and Avoidance Motivations

Approach and Avoidance as Two Fundamental Systems

Social Approach and Avoidance Motivations and Related Constructs

Historical Roots of the Research on Social Approach and Avoidance Motivations

Establishing and Maintaining Social Relationships as a Function of Social Motivations

Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Processes of Social Approach and Avoidance Motivations

The Origins and Development of Social Approach and Avoidance Motivations Across the Lifespan

Conclusions and Future Directions

References

13 Ostracism and Solitude

Overview of Ostracism

Williams’s Temporal Model of Ostracism

Methods to Examine Chronic Ostracism

“I Want To Be Alone”: Self-Ostracism/Being Alone

Summary

References

14 Social Isolation among Older People

Population Trends

Measuring Social Isolation: Definitional Issues

How Common Are Social Isolation and Loneliness?

Who Is at Risk of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Old Age?

Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on Health and Well-Being

Are the Baby Boomers More at Risk for Social Isolation and Loneliness as They Age?

Future Directions in Research

References

Part III : Solitude Across Contexts

15 Anxious Solitude at School

Anxious Solitary Children: Individual–School Environment Relations from a Developmental Perspective

Peer Relations of Anxious Solitary Children at School

Teachers’ Relationships with and Perceptions of Anxious Solitary Children

School Environment and Adjustment in Anxious Solitary Children

Conclusions and Future Directions

References

16 Loneliness and Belongingness in the College Years

Loneliness and Belonging in the College Context

Theoretical Background

Differentiating Loneliness from Belongingness

Issues in the Assessment of Loneliness and Belongingness

Loneliness and Belongingness in College

Emerging Research on Loneliness and Belongingness as Distinct Constructs

References

17 Single in a Society Preoccupied with Couples

Are We a Society of Married Couples or a Society of Singles? The Demographics

Is American Social Life Organized around Couples? Inclusion and Exclusion of People Who Are Single

Single or Coupled in Public: Who Cares?

Living Alone or Living Together: What Are Twenty-First-Century Americans Choosing?

The Experience of Loneliness: Does Marrying Make You Less Vulnerable?

The Experience of Spending Time Alone among the Single at Heart

Conclusions

References

18 Loneliness and Internet Use

Psychological Properties of the Internet

The General Impact of the Internet on Loneliness

Individual Differences as Moderators of the Impact of the Net

Internet Addiction and the Lonely

Moving from Online to Offline: Do Online Social Skills Transfer Successfully?

Final Words and Future Directions

References

19 Mindfulness Meditation: Seeking Solitude in Community

Mindfulness and Solitude

Mindfulness-Based and Manifestations of Solitude

Other Communal Manifestations of Solitude

Conclusions and Future Directions

References

20 The Restorative Qualities of Being Alone with Nature

Restoration Studies Using Individuals and Small Groups

Private Spaces in Childhood

Restorative Experiences and Solitude in Natural Favorite Places

The Social Context of Restoration

Conclusions and Future Directions

References

Part IV : Clinical Perspectives

21 Social Anhedonia and Solitude

Understanding Social Anhedonia

Theories on the Origins of Social Anhedonia from Schizophrenia Research

Empirical Study of Social Anhedonia

Future Directions in Social Anhedonia Research

References

22 Social Anxiety Disorder and Emotional Solitude

Social Anxiety and Social Anxiety Disorder

Social Anxiety in Childhood and Adolescence

Social Anxiety in Adults

Future Directions

Summary

References

23 Loneliness and Social Isolation in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Theoretical Basis of Loneliness

Loneliness and Autism

Understanding and Endorsing Loneliness in Autism

Autistic Children’s Understanding and Self-Perceptions of Friendships

Friendship Quality and Reciprocity

Feelings of Belonging and Social Connectedness

Potential Negative Sequelae of Loneliness

Potential for Prevention/Interventions

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

24 Solitude and Personality Disorders

Personality and Personality Disorders

Development of Mental Representations as Related to Solitude

Theory on Mental Representations and Personality Pathology

Research on Mental Representations and Personality Pathology

Expression of Behavioral Solitude in Personality Disorders

Future Directions

References

25 The Intersection of Culture and Solitude: The Hikikomori Phenomenon in Japan

History of Hikikomori in Japan

Defining Hikikomori

Theoretical Underpinnings

Clinical Features

Risk Factors

Family History and Dynamics

Social Context

Treatment and Recovery

Future Directions

Conclusion

References

Part V : Disciplinary Perspectives

26 A View from Biology: Playing Alone and with Others: A Lesson from Animals

Solitary Object Play and Its Implications in Cognitive Development

SLR Play

Why Study Playful Expressions during Solitary Play?

Becoming Adults: The Importance of Social Play

The Ontogeny of Play: Comparing Humans and Chimpanzees

Acknowledgements

References

27 A View from Anthropology: Anomie and Urban Solitude

Varieties of Solitude and Anomie

Other Solitudes

Urban Scenes of Anomie

Neoliberal Solitude

Conclusions: Solitude Toward Difference

References

28 A View from Sociology: The Role of Solitude in Transcending Social Crises – New Possibilities for Existential Sociology

The Outside Society

Socio-solitude in Seventeenth-Century England

Beyond the Seventeenth Century: Solitude and Crises

Surrender and Catch

Existential Sociology’s Enhancement Through the Study of Solitude

Notes

References

29 A View from Computer Science: From Solitude to Ambient Sociability – Redefining the Social and Psychological Aspects of Isolation in Online Games

World of Warcraft: A Brief Overview

Method and Procedures

Results: Sociability in World of Warcraft

Discussion: From Solitude to Ambient Sociability

Conclusion

References

30 A View from Political Theory: Desire, Subjectivity, and Pseudo-Solitude

Ambivalences of Solitude

The Pseudo-Solitude of Stoic Self-Control

The Pseudo-Solitude of Teenage Vampiredom

The Pseudo-Solitude of Modern Democratic Life

The Pseudo-Solitude of the (Pseudo-)Public Sphere

Conclusion

References

31 A View from Religious Studies: Solitude and Spirituality

Solitude in Christian Tradition

Solitude in the World’s Religions

Secular Solitaries as Spiritual Seekers

Conclusions

References

Index

For

Kenneth H. Rubin

scholar, mentor, and friend

and

For

Our Families

without whom we would always feel alone

This edition first published 2014© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148–5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of Robert J. Coplan and Julie C. Bowker to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

Hardback ISBN: 978-1-118-42736-1

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Cover image: Night Sky Over Monterey Bay, California. © Don Smith / Getty Images.Cover design by Nicki Averill Design

List of Contributors

Lynn E. Alden, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Yair Amichai-Hamburger, The Research Center for Internet Psychology (CIP), Sammy Ofer School of Communications, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel

Steven R. Asher, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Karen W. Auyeung, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

James R. Averill, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

John D. Barbour, Department of Religion, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN, USA

Neus Barrantes-Vidal, Department of Clinical Psychology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain; University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA; Sant Pere Claver – Fundació Sanitària, Barcelona, Spain; Instituto de Salud Carlos III, CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain.

Julie C. Bowker, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, NY, USA

Matthew H. Bowker, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Medaille College, Buffalo, NY, USA

William M. Bukowski, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Leo Coleman, Department of Comparative Studies, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Robert J. Coplan, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Bella DePaulo, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Jonathan J. Detrixhe, Department of Psychiatry, Center for Intensive Treatment of Personality Disorders, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY, USA

Nicolas Ducheneaut, Computer Science Laboratory, Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Jack Fong, Department of Psychology and Sociology, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA

Evangelia Galanaki, Department of Special Education and Psychology, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Heidi Gazelle, Melbourne School of Psychologyological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Luc Goossens, Department of School Psychology & Child and Adolescent Development, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Andrew H. Hales, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Connie Kasari, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles

Takahiro A. Kato, Department of Neuropsychiatry, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Kalevi Korpela, School of Social Sciences and Humanities/Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland

Thomas R. Kwapil, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

Kenneth N. Levy, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Stephanie Luster, Department of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Andrea Markovic, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, NY, USA

Susan Matarese, Department of Political Science, University of Louisville, Louisville KY USA

Kevin B. Meehan, Department of Psychology, Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus, NY, USA

Mario Mikulincer, Department of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel

Vladimir Miskovic, McMaster Institute for Neuroscience, Discovery, & Study (MiNDS), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Larry J. Nelson, Department of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Drew Nesdale, School of Applied Psychology and Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia

Jana Nikitin, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Laura Ooi, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Elisabetta Palagi, Centro Interdipartimentale Museo di Storia Naturale e del Territorio, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Unità di Primatologia Cognitiva, CNR, Roma, Italy

Karl Pillemer, Department of Human Development & Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Dongning Ren, Department of Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Kenneth H. Rubin, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Paul Salmon, Department of Psychological and Brain Science, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Louis A. Schmidt, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; McMaster Institute for Neuroscience, Discovery, & Study (MiNDS), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Barry H. Schneider, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Simone Schoch, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Phillip R. Shaver, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

Madelynn Druhen Shell, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, VI, USA

Paul J. Silvia, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

Karin Sobocko, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Henk Staats, Department of Psychology, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

Lindsey Sterling, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles

Kyle W. Stufflebam, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Louise Sundararajan, Forensic Unit, Rochester Psychologyiatric Center, Rochester, NY, USA

Christina M. Temes, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Alan R. Teo, Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

Marie-Hélene Véronneau, Department of Psychology, Université du Québec á Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Molly Stroud Weeks, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Eric D. Wesselmann, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, IL, USA

ElaineWethington, Department of Human Development & Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Deanna C. Whelan, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Kipling D. Williams, Department of Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Nicholas Yee, Computer Science Laboratory, Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA

John M. Zelenski, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, School of Applied Psychology and Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia

Foreword

On Solitude, Withdrawal, and Social Isolation

Kenneth H. Rubin

As I sit in my office pondering what it is that I should be writing in the Foreword to this extraordinary compendium, I am alone. With the door closed, I am ­protected against possible interruptions and am reminded of the positive features of ­solitude – there is no one around, it is quiet, and I can concentrate on the duties at hand. Indeed, several contributors to this volume have written about the pleasantries associated with solitude; frankly, I must agree with this perspective, but do so with a number of significant provisos. I will offer a listing of these provisos in the ­following text. However, before so doing, I would like to suggest a thought ­experiment or two.

A Science Fiction Thought Experiment

Why must one understand the significance of solitude, withdrawal, and social ­isolation? Let’s begin with a little thought experiment. Imagine, for at least one millisecond, that we have arrived on a planet populated by billions of people. Never mind how these people came into existence. Let’s just assume that they happen to be on the planet and that we know not how they came to be. Imagine too that there is no interpersonal magnetism … that these people never come together … there are no interactions … there is no crashing together or colliding of these ­individuals. All we can see are solitary entities walking aimlessly, perhaps occasionally observing each other. In short, we are left with many individuals who produce, collectively, an enormous social void. From an Earthly perspective, we might find the entire enterprise to be rather intriguing or boring or frightening and would likely predict that prospects for the future of this planet are dim.

Given that this is a supposed “thought exercise,” please allow me to humor myself and replace the aforementioned noun “people” with “atoms” or their intrinsic properties of electrons, protons, and neutrons. By so doing, one might have to contemplate such topics as magnetism and collision and the products of these actions. This would immediately give rise to thoughts of mass, electricity, and excitement. Without magnetism (attraction), electricity, and excitement, whatever would we be left with? As I move more forcefully into this exercise, I find myself in increasingly unfamiliar territory – I may study pretense, but I am not a pretender … at least insofar as suggesting to anyone willing to listen (or read) that I have “real” knowledge about anything pertaining to physics. In fact, I am ever so happy to leave the study of the Higgs boson to that group of scholars engaged in research at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

For the time being, I will escape from any contemplation of physics and swiftly return to thinking about a planet on which people appear to exist without laws of attraction. If the “people” who inhabit the planet do not collide, we are left with the inevitability of what solitude would eventually predict – a nothingness, an emptiness, a void. If “people” did not collide, did not interact, there would be no “us.” Relationships would not exist; there would be no human groups, no ­communities, no cultures. There would be no sense of values, norms, rules, laws. Social hierarchies would not exist; there would be no need to think about mind-reading, perspective-taking, interpersonal problem-solving. Liking, loving, ­accepting, rejecting, excluding, victimizing … none of these significant constructs would be relevant. Social comparison, self-appraisal, felt security, loneliness, ­rejection sensitivity … topics that tend to appear regularly in the Developmental, Social, Personality, Cognitive, and Clinical Psychology literatures would be ­irrelevant. From my admittedly limited perspective, as a Developmental Scientist (and thankfully not as a Physicist), there would be nothing to write, think, feel, or be about. Thank goodness for those nuclear researchers at CERN. They have taught us that magnetism matters, that interactions matter, that clusters matter (and may collide to produce new entities). These folks are not pondering what happens with people … they are thinking at the subatomic level. I, on the other hand, have spent the past 40-some years thinking about people, their individual characteristics, their interactions and collisions with one another, the relationships that are formed on the basis of their interactions, and the groups, communities, and cultures within which these individuals and relationships can be found. Indeed, I have collected more than a fair share of data on these topics. In so doing, I am left with the conclusion that solitude, isolation, and social withdrawal can be ruinous. It ain’t science fiction.

A Second Thought Experience

Let’s move to a rather different thought experience. Imagine that the community within which we live teaches its inhabitants, from early childhood, that normative sociocultural expectations involve helping, sharing, and caring with and for each other; teaching each other about that which defines the “good, bad, and ugly”; communicating with each other about norms and what may happen when one conforms to or violates them. Imagine too, that in such a community within which interaction, cooperation, and relationships matter, there are some individuals who, for whatever reason, do not interact with their confreres. One might suppose that the remaining members of the community could ponder why it is that these ­solitary individuals behave as they do. And several suggestions may be offered for their solitude.

For example, it may be suggested that some of these noninteracting ­individuals have some biological or perhaps some genetic orientation that leads them to feel uncomfortable in the presence of others. Perhaps members of the community may have read something about a gene that is associated with diminished 5-HTT transcription and reduced serotonin uptake. Some in the community may have read somewhere that without the regulating effects of serotonin, the ­amygdala and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) system can become overactive, ­leading to the physiological profile of a fearful or anxious individual. Fear may be a ­guiding force for these solitary individuals – fear of what may happen if they approach ­others in the community; fear of what may happen if they attempt to develop a nonfamilial relationship with another in the community; fear of leaving a negative impression on those who may judge their actions, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

Or perhaps, some might believe that it is not fear that guides the behaviors of some of these solitary individuals. Instead, it might be proposed that some of these noninteracting individuals have a biological orientation that leads them to prefer a solitary existence. These individuals may feel more positively inclined when in the company of inanimate objects … things. At this point, our second thought ­experience leaves us with the identification of two “types” of solitary individuals: (1) those who are motivated by fear, the prospects of social appraisal, and ­heightened sensitivity to the possibility of rejection; and (2) those who have a ­distinct preference for solitude.

Regardless of the epidemiological “causes” of solitary behavior, in a society that has strong beliefs in the importance of cooperation, collaboration, and caregiving, it is likely that the majority of individuals who adhere to the cultural ethos would begin to think unpleasant thoughts about the noninteracting minority. They may think of solitary individuals as displaying unacceptable, ­discomfiting behavior; they may begin to feel negatively about them; they may discuss among themselves the need to exclude these noninteractors or to alter the behavior of these nonconforming individuals. Indeed, from the extant research, it is known that those who display behaviors considered to be inappropriate or abhorrent to the majority may be isolated by the group-at-large. And so now we have a third group of solitary individuals – those who have been isolated by the social group.

But how would these hypothetical community responses affect the nonsocial, nonconforming individual? What kinds of interactive/noninteractive cycles would be generated? And what would the solitary individuals think and feel about the larger community responses to them?

The Point

The preceding verbiage brings me to the singular message that I am attempting to convey. From “all of the above,” I am willing to step out on a limb to suggest, straight-out, that solitude can be punishing, humbling, debilitating, and destructive.

I do admit that it would be foolish to ignore the perspectives of those who have sung the praises of solitude. This would include several authors of chapters in this compendium. It would also include the many beloved and respected authors, poets, painters, philosophers, spiritualists, and scientists who have suggested that their best work or their deepest thoughts derive from those moments when they are able to escape the madding crowd. Here are a few examples:

1 “You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.”Franz Kafka

2 “How much better is silence; the coffee cup, the table. How much better to sit by myself like the solitary sea-bird that opens its wings on the stake. Let me sit here forever with bare things, this coffee cup, this knife, this fork, things in themselves, myself being myself.” Virginia Woolf

I could offer hundreds of quotations about the glories of solitude from rather well-known people. Nevertheless, from my perhaps distorted, limited, and ego-centered perspective, I find it difficult to believe that one can lead a productive and happy life locked in a closet, a cave, a tent, a room. Virginia Woolf committed suicide; Kafka had documented psychological difficulties vis-à-vis his inability to develop and maintain positive and supportive relationships with others. One may prefer solitude … and many of us require solitude for contemplation, exploration, problem-solving, introspection, and the escape of pressures elicited by the social/academic/employment/political communities. As I noted in the opening paragraph, solitude may be an entirely acceptable pursuit. But this statement comes with several provisos.

The “ifs”. If one spends time alone voluntarily, and if one can join a social group when one wants to, and if one can regulate one’s emotions (e.g., social fears and anger) effectively, and if one can initiate and maintain positive, supportive relationships with significant others, then the solitary experience can be productive. But the provisos that I have appended to the solitary experience are rather significant. I am quite certain that what the reader will come away with after having completed the chapters included herein is that solitude has many faces. These faces have varied developmental beginnings, concomitants, and courses. And these faces may be interpreted in different ways in different contexts, communities, and cultures. And perhaps most importantly, the provisos offered previously must be kept in mind regardless of context, community, and culture. Frankly, if one fails to be mindful of these provisos, one can return to the introductory thought experiment and be assured that the failure of individuals to “collide” with one another will result in unpleasant consequences.

People do need to collide, or better put, interact with others. Of course, these interactions must be viewed by both partners as acceptable, positive, and productive. These interactions must be need-fulfilling. Drawing from the wisdom of others who have written of the significance of such interactions (e.g., John Bowlby and Robert Hinde), one might expect that a product of these interactive experiences is the expectation of the nature of future interactions with the same partners. Furthermore, from this perspective, one might expect that each partner is likely to develop a set of expectations about the nature of future interactions with unknown others. If the interactions experienced are pleasant and productive, then positive dyadic relationships may result. If, however, the interactions ­experienced are unpleasant or agonistic, the partners may avoid each other. And in some cases, if a particular individual comes to expect that all interactions will eventually prove negative, withdrawal from the social community may result.

A Final Comment:Annus horribilis

During the first six months of 2012, I “lived” in a hospital after having endured a heart transplant and numerous health complications. Although I was surrounded by medical staff and had many regular visitors, I was literally isolated from the “outside world.”

For the first two months of my hospitalization, my mind and body were at the river’s edge. But when the neurons began firing somewhat normally (beginning March 2012), and when I was able to converse with hospital staff and visitors, I nevertheless felt totally alone. It did not help that when visitors (and medical staff) met with me, they were required to wear masks, gloves, and medical gowns of one sort or another.

Eventually, it struck me that I was living at the extreme edge of what I had been studying for most of my professional career. And just as I had found through the use of questionnaires, interviews, rating scales, and observations (with samples of children and adolescents, and their parents, peers, and friends), solitude brought with it intrapersonal feelings of loneliness, sadness, anxiety, helplessness, and hopelessness. I felt disconnected from my personal and professional communities. Despite visitors’ generosity and kindness, I was miserable. Of course, when I was able to read and use my laptop, I could have taken the opportunity to play with ideas and data; my solitude could have been productive. But negative affect (­emotion dysregulation) got in the way.

Upon return home, I rehabilitated and received visitors – family, friends, ­colleagues, students, former golf and hockey “buddies.” I welcomed news about family (I was especially grateful to be reunited with my grandchildren!), friends, academe, and the world-at-large. I began to catch up on the various projects that my lab was involved in. Within a matter of weeks, I was coauthoring ­manuscripts and preparing abstracts for submission to various conferences. Although ­physically weak and incapable of taking lengthy walks or lifting anything heavier than a few pounds, my spirits were greatly improving – I was no longer alone! And finally, by August, when I returned to campus for the first time, I felt reconnected … and valued!

The bottom line is that my personal solitude, especially given that it was ­experienced for a lengthy period of time and “enforced” externally and ­involuntarily, resulted in unpleasant consequences. The good news is that I have come to believe that the data my colleagues and I have collected over the years are actually ­meaningful beyond the halls of academe! Spending an inordinate time alone; ­feeling disconnected, rejected, and lonely; being excluded and perhaps victimized by others; being unable to competently converse with and relate to others (which may well result from solitude) can create a life of misery and malcontent; in some cases, this combination of factors may result in attempts at self-harm; in other cases it may result in attempts to harm others. Think for a moment about how often perpetrators of violence (e.g., Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newton High School, and the Boston Marathon bombings) have been described as loners, ­withdrawn, victimized, isolated, and friendless. Indeed, think about how some of the perpetrators have described themselves.

As I write this last sentence, my mind drifts to the lyricist/songwriting team of Eddie Vedder and Jeff Ament. Their evocative song “Jeremy” is based, in part, on the description of the death of Jeremy Wade Delle, a 15-year-old high school ­student in Richardson, Texas. Jeremy is portrayed as a quiet, sad adolescent who “spoke in class today” by committing suicide (by gunshot) in the presence of his classmates. The lyrics also suggest that the Jeremy in the song suffered parental abuse and/or neglect. In the music video, Jeremy appears to be rejected, excluded, and isolated by his peers. The words “harmless,” “peers,” and “problem” appear throughout the video. And in interviews about the “meanings” of the lyrics, Vedder has suggested that he was attempting to draw attention to one possible consequence of difficulties that can be produced by familial and peer disruptions. More importantly, he argued that one must gather one’s strength to fight against the seeming inevitability of the negative consequences of isolation, solitude, and rejection. I would suggest that the central message is that family members, peers, school personnel, and community leaders should be aware of the signs that ­presage intra- and interpersonal desolation.

Of course, not all people described as “solitary” or “isolated” have intra- or interpersonal problems. As noted previously, solitude and social withdrawal are not “necessarily evil.” We all need time alone … to energize and re-energize, to mull, to produce this-and-that without interruption. But our species is a social species. So much is gained when people interact, collaborate, help, and care for others, develop relationships, and become active members of groups and communities. However, when combined with dysregulated emotions, social incompetence, and a lack of supportive relationships, solitude, much like many other behavioral ­constructs studied by psychologists, can induce miserable consequences. The “trick” is to know if, when, and how to intervene within the family, peer group, and community.

In closing, it is with pleasure and pride that two of my former students (and current colleagues and close friends) have done such a wonderful job in putting together this compendium on solitude. After all, I do believe that once upon a time, I may have introduced the constructs of social withdrawal and solitude to Rob Coplan and Julie Bowker! Somehow, I doubt that I instructed or commandeered Rob and Julie to study solitude, isolation, and aloneness. If memory serves me correct, they were each interested in things social. All I happened to do was provide them with a personal, historical (perhaps hysterical) note about how and why I became interested in the research I was doing. Of course, I could never claim to have played a role in the thoughts and research of those who have ­examined solitude from the perspectives of anthropology, biology, computer ­science, divinity, neuroscience, political science, primatology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and those tracks of psychology that focus primarily on personality, the environment, autism, and adult relationships. Therein lies the beauty of this compendium. Editors Coplan and Bowker have cleverly taken a twisty turn that curves beyond their own comfort zones of Developmental Science. By so doing, they have left me absolutely delighted. Coplan and Bowker have clearly attempted to move the reader into multiple zones of cognitive disequilibration and to ­appreciate that if we are to truly understand any given phenomenon, we must look well beyond the silos within which we are typically reinforced to reside. You now hold in your hands a selection of readings that describe a variety of ­perspectives on solitude. You will read what solitude looks like; why it is that people spend time alone; why it is that solitude can be a necessary experience; how it feels and what one thinks about when one spends a good deal of time avoiding others or being rejected and excluded by one’s social community. There is no compendium quite like the one that you are handling. I applaud the editors’ efforts, and I do hope that the reader does herself/himself justice by closely examining chapters that move well beyond their own self-defined areas of ­expertise and intrapersonal comfort tunnels.

Part I

Theoretical Perspectives

1

All Alone

Multiple Perspectives on the Study of Solitude

Robert J. Coplan1 and Julie C. Bowker2

1 Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada2 Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, NY, USA

Seems I’m not alone in being alone. – Gordon Matthew Sumner (1979)

The experience of solitude is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Historically, solitude has been considered both a boon and a curse, with artists, poets, musicians, and philosophers both lauding and lamenting being alone. Over the course of the lifespan, humans experience solitude for many different reasons and subjectively respond to solitude with a wide range of reactions and consequences. Some people may retreat to solitude as a respite from the stresses of life, for quiet contemplation, to foster creative impulses, or to commune with nature. Others may suffer the pain and loneliness of social isolation, withdrawing or being forcefully excluded from social interactions. Indeed, we all have and will experience different types of solitude in our lives.

The complex relationship we have with solitude and its multifaceted nature is reflected in our everyday language and culture. We can be alone in a crowd, alone with nature, or alone with our thoughts. Solitude can be differentially characterized along the full range of a continuum from a form of punishment (e.g., time-outs for children, solitary confinement for prisoners) to a less than ideal context (e.g., no man is an island, one is the loneliest number, misery loves company), all the way to a desirable state (e.g., taking time for oneself, needing your space or alone time). In this Handbook, we explore the many different faces of solitude, from perspectives inside and outside of psychology. In this introductory chapter, we consider some emergent in the historical study of solitude (see ) – and provide an overview of the contents of this volume.