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/content/29/5/578

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

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

Citations: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/29/5/578.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2003

What is This?

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014

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
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 Lone-
liness. 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 consid-
ered a severe punishment. Not surprisingly, much con-
temporary psychological research has focused on allevi-
ating the negative effects of being alone (e.g., Ernst &
Cacioppo, 1999).
Historically, however, solitude often has been associ-
ated 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
578
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014
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 Wil-
derness Act of 1964 (U.S. Public Law 88-577) mandated
congressionally designated wilderness areas “to preserve
natural conditions, to provide opportunities for soli-
tude, and to provide a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation” (Shafer & Hammitt, 1995, p. 266). Although
the Wilderness Act remains fundamental to U.S. wilder-
ness 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 oppor-
tunity it provides to engage in self-selected activities, rela-
tively free of social encumbrances and expectations
(e.g., Burger, 1998; Larson, 1990). Such freedom, how-
ever, 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
Authors’ Note: This research was supported, in part, by Grant No. 23-
253, 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. Corre-
spondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris Long,
Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
01003; e-mail: clong@psych.umass.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 29 No. 5, May 2003 578-583
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203251535
© 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

is derived from Winnicott’s (1958) influential article,
“The Capacity to be Alone,” in which he posited that peo-
ple who as infants were free to explore and independ-
ently 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 ide-
ology, 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 epi-
sodes 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, contem-
plating the past, and hoping for the future also charac-
terized 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 nega-
tive episodes were more often associated with involun-
tary 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.) Phenom-
enologically, the experience of most of the negative epi-
sodes 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, posi-
tive experiences of solitude were more varied. Among
the benefits attributed to the positive episodes were
increased self-understanding, self-renewal, and creativ-
ity; positive episodes were rated as more spiritual than
were negative episodes.
The purpose of the present study was to examine sys-
tematically 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 soli-
tude over another.
METHOD
Three hundred and twenty undergraduate volun-
teers (80% female; Mdn age = 20, range = 18 to 56)
received course credit for completing a questionnaire.
Questionnaires were distributed in psychology courses
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014
Long et al. / SOLITUDE 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 identi-
fied on the basis of the dominant feelings, activities,
and/or outcomes characteristic of an episode. Seven
types were positive: anonymity (and the freedom associ-
ated with it), creativity, inner peace, intimacy, problem
solving, self-discovery, and spirituality. One was negative
(loneliness) and one was neutral (diversion). The fol-
lowing 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 en-
gaging in other distracting activities.
• Solitude as inner peace: While alone, you feel calm and re-
laxed, 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 oppor-
tunity 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 weak-
nesses.
• Solitude as spirituality: While alone, you have a mystic-like
experience, for example, a sense of transcending every-
day 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 har-
mony with a social or natural order).
Using Likert-type scales, participants rated each type
of solitude on the frequency with which it was experi-
enced, the amount of effort they would be willing to
expend to have such an experience, and the extent of its
580 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

influence on their lives. To guard against order effects, TABLE 1: Mean Ratings of Importance and Frequency for Nine
Varieties of Solitude
the solitude types were presented in one of three ran-
domly assigned orders. Importancea Frequency
b

To assess individual differences in the capacity for, or Solitude Type M (SD) M (SD)
predisposition toward, solitude, participants also com-
pleted the following measures: (a) Depression Inventory Problem solving 5.44 (1.36) 5.77 (1.29)
(Costello & Comrey, 1967): A scale used to assess Inner peace 5.19 (1.40) 5.41 (1.53)
Self-discovery 5.11 (1.50) 5.17 (1.57)
nonclinical levels of depression, which often accompa- Diversion 5.01 (1.56) 6.39 (1.15)
nies loneliness; (b) Emotional Creativity Inventory Creativity 4.38 (1.79) 4.83 (1.77)
(Averill, 1999): An assessment of the ability of people to Anonymity 4.21 (1.82) 5.08 (1.89)
be emotionally adaptive and innovative when in poten- Intimacy 4.02 (1.98) 4.48 (2.15)
tially challenging situations; (c) Experiences in Close Spirituality 3.55 (2.08) 3.52 (2.16)
Loneliness 2.79 (1.52) 4.20 (1.92)
Relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998): An
assessment of attachment styles along two dimensions— a. Mean of two scales on which seven was the highest possible rating:
avoidant attachment and anxious attachment; (d) Intro- One rating scale assessed the degree to which participants believed a
particular type of solitude had influenced their lives and the other as-
version-Extraversion and Neuroticism (emotional sessed the likelihood participants might exert effort to experience a
lability) from the Eysenck Personality Inventory particular type of solitude.
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964); (e) The Life Satisfaction b. 1 = less than once a year, 4 = once a month, and 7 = once a week or more.
Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985): A brief
measure of global life satisfaction; (f) Preference for Sol-
itude Scale (Burger, 1995): Presently, the only scale solitude were generally rated as more frequent than neg-
designed specifically to measure a person’s proclivity for ative ones. Psychology’s almost exclusive emphasis on
solitude; (g) Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965): A widely loneliness, while understandable, seems disproportion-
used measure of self-esteem, which presumably relates ate in light of these results. Although spirituality is a
to the capacity to benefit from solitude; (h) University of prominent feature of classical writings on solitude, in the
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Loneliness scale (Rus- present study it was rated the least frequent and least
sell, 1996): A widely used measure of dispositional loneli- important of all the types. Still, with a mean frequency
ness; and (i) Value Survey (Schwartz, 1994): An instru- rating of 3.52, participants reported that a spiritual epi-
ment assessing 10 global values, namely, self-direction, sode occurred almost once a month, indicating that it is
stimulation, hedonism, achievement, universalism, an aspect of everyday solitude that should not be
benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, and power.
overlooked.
Further rationale for including certain of these indi-
vidual difference variables will be discussed as results are Settings for Solitude
presented. The scales are relatively short, and the entire
questionnaire was easily completed within an hour. Based on the results of the earlier qualitative study by
Long (2000), the most common settings for solitude
RESULTS
were grouped in three broad categories: “at home (or
dorm or apartment),” “in a public place (coffee shop,
Importance and Frequency of Solitude Types library, museum, mall, etc.),” and “in nature (woods,
park, beach, mountains, etc.).” Participants indicated in
Participants who rated a type of solitude as influential
which of these three locations they were most likely to
also tended to rate it as worthy of effort, median r = .75
experience each type of solitude. The results are pre-
across the nine types of solitude. These two scales were
sented in Table 2.
therefore averaged to provide a single measure of
Consistent with the results of Long (2000), partici-
importance.
As can be seen in Table 1, participants rated problem pants overwhelmingly reported that solitude was most
solving, inner peace, and self-discovery as the three most likely to occur in their own home. The only exception to
important types of solitude and the second, third, and this was spirituality, which, when it did occur, was far
fourth most frequently experienced types, respectively. more likely to occur in nature (67%) than at home
Diversion was rated as the most frequently experienced (23%). A sizable minority of participants also indicated
type of solitude but as only the fourth most important. By that inner peace, self-discovery, and creativity were likely
contrast, loneliness and spirituality were rated as the to occur in nature (42%, 26%, and 20% for the three
least important and least frequently experienced types. types, respectively). Loneliness and creativity were the
If we exclude diversion, which may be used as a only types of solitude judged likely to occur in public
defense against loneliness, then positive experiences of places with any frequency (28% and 19%, respectively).

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014

 Long et al. / SOLITUDE 581

TABLE 2: Physical Setting in Which Each Type of Solitude Is Likely TABLE 3: Value and Personality Scale Correlates of the Three
to Be Experienced: Percentage Endorsing Dimensions of Solitude

Percentage Experienced Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Solitude Type At Home In a Public Place In Nature Variable (Inner-Directed) (Loneliness) (Outer-Directed)

Diversion 95 4 1 Values
Anonymity 83 13 5 Self-direction .28** .05 .05
Problem solving 72 11 18 Universalism .25** .11 .20**
Intimacy 70 13 17 Achievement .16* .14* .14*
Loneliness 70 28 2 Stimulation .14* .08 .02
Self-discovery 62 12 26 Hedonism .11* .08 –.00
Creativity 61 19 20 Benevolence .11 .06 .17**
Inner peace 53 6 42 Security .04 .24** .08
Spirituality 23 10 67 Power –.00 .21** –.04
Conformity –.02 .10 .10**
Tradition –.02 .03 .18**
Personality scales
Preference for solitude .32** .06 –.05
Emotional creativity .32** –.06 .32**
Relations Among Types of Solitude Self-esteem .13* –.32** .08
Life satisfaction .08 –.30** .10
A principal components factor analysis with oblique Neuroticism .04 .34** .01
rotation was performed on the nine varieties of solitude Loneliness .02 .21** –.07
based on their mean ratings of importance. Theoretical Extraversion –.03 –.26** .10
considerations, as well as the scree test, suggested three Avoidant attachment –.12 .18** –.19**
primary factors, with eigenvalues of 2.41, 1.36, and .97, Anxious attachment –.15** .31** –.00
Depression –.16** .32** –.06
respectively (accounting for 52.68% of the total
variance). NOTE: Participants’ values were assessed using Schwartz’s (1994)
Factor 1 suggests an inner-directed focus of attention, Value Survey. Personality variables were assessed using Burger’s (1995)
Preference for Solitude Scale; Averill’s (1999) Emotional Creativity In-
with high loadings (presented here in parentheses) on ventory; Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale; Diener, Emmons,
self-discovery (.73), inner peace (.68), and anonymity Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) Life Satisfaction Scale; Eysenck and
(freedom from social constraints; .64). Creativity and Eysenck’s (1964) Eysenck Personality Inventory; the University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles, Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996); Brennan, Clark,
problem solving also loaded highly on this dimension and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in Close Relationships Scale; and
(.58 and .57, respectively), which suggests some degree Costello and Comrey’s (1967) Depression Inventory.
of inner turmoil or change. At first, the high loading of *p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.
inner peace on this factor might seem inconsistent with
turmoil and change, unless a temporal dimension is
solitude. Stated differently, a person can be prone to be
taken into account; that is, the inconsistency is easily rec-
lonely (or not lonely) and creative at the same time, say,
onciled if inner peace is an expected consequence of
or prone to be lonely (or not lonely) and spiritual at the
self-discovery, creativity, and problems solved.
same time.
Factor 2 consists of Loneliness (.70) and Diversion
Bartlett’s factor scores were calculated for each partic-
(.67), the latter being a means of coping with loneliness.
In addition, although it loaded higher on Factor 3, inti- ipant. The correlations between these factor scores and
macy loaded moderately (.45) on Factor 2. This is not the individual difference variables are presented in
surprising because a person who feels intimate with Table 3. As can be seen from the top half of Table 3, the
someone who is not present also may feel especially correlations between the factor scores and Schwartz’s
lonely. value survey support the interpretation of the three
Factor 3, with high loading on intimacy (.70) and spir- dimensions discussed earlier. Specifically, Factor 1
ituality (.63), suggests an outer-directed focus and, more (Inner-Directed Solitude) is related to individualistic val-
specifically, a connection with others who are not physi- ues, such as self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism.
cally present, be they significant others, nature, or God Factor 3 (Outer-Directed Solitude) is related to more
(however conceived). This factor is also distinguished collectivist values, such as tradition and benevolence.
from the other two by the negative loading (–.41) of ano- Both Factors 1 and 3 are related to the values of univer-
nymity, which is consistent with an outer-directed focus. salism and achievement, consistent with the fact that
Factors 1 and 3 are positively correlated (r = .19); nei- these two dimensions are not independent, at least as
ther Factors 1 and 2 nor Factors 2 and 3 are significantly based on the measures used in this study. Finally, Factor 2
correlated. This indicates that Loneliness is independ- (Loneliness) is related to the values of security and
ent of, and not opposite to, the positive dimensions of power, both of which may be thwarted during solitude.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014

582 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
TABLE 4: Stepwise Regression of Individual Difference Variables on
Factor Scores
Multiple Beta
Predictor Correlation (standardized)
Factor 1 (Inner-Directed
Solitude) R = .48
Emotional creativity .33
Preference for solitude .28
Anxious attachment –.15
Factor 2 (Loneliness) R = .40
Neuroticism .21
Self-esteem –.19
Extraversion –.13
Factor 3 (Outer-Directed
Solitude) R = .31
Emotional creativity .31
NOTE: Variables included as possible predictors in the stepwise proce-
dure included preference for solitude, emotional creativity, self-
esteem, 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 Inner-
Directed Solitude (Factor 1). Emotional creativity, but
not preference for solitude, also was related to Outer-
Directed Solitude (Factor 3). Neuroticism, low self-
esteem, dissatisfaction with life, and predispositions
toward depression and loneliness were the variables
most closely associated with Loneliness (Factor 2). Per-
haps surprisingly, introversion (the inverse of extra-
version) also was associated with Loneliness.
Stereotypically, the introvert is less in need of the com-
pany 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 posi-
tively, 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 attach-
ment-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
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014
Solitude, and neuroticism was the best predictor of soli-
tude as Loneliness. The Preference for Solitude Scale
also predicted Inner-Directed Solitude. Anxious attach-
p ment was negatively related to Inner-Directed Solitude,
and self-esteem and extraversion were negatively related
to solitude as loneliness. For all three dimensions, the
.000 multiple correlations were substantial.
.000
.004 DISCUSSION
.001 As human beings, we are social by nature. An isolated
.003 person, with few means of natural defense, would not
.028 survive for long “in the wild.” Not surprisingly, then, we
seek and enjoy the company of others, and we may go to
.000 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 identi-
fied in this study (i.e., Inner- and Outer-Directed Soli-
tude, and Loneliness) appear to be empirically robust
and theoretically sound. Not only were they identifiable
through factor analysis but they also showed easily inter-
pretable 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 vari-
ables: the situational and the personal.
With respect to situational variables, one’s home (or
one’s dorm or apartment) was regarded as the most com-
mon setting for solitude of all types. This is almost trivi-
ally 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 experi-
ences 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 soli-
tude to an “ecological niche” (p. 40). Similar to an eco-
logical 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 per-
sonal characteristics associated with thriving in 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 primar-
ily to Inner-Directed Solitude (self-discovery, etc.) and
not to Outer-Directed Solitude (intimacy and spiritual-
ity). 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 emo-
tions 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 identi-
fied here (Inner-Directed, Outer-Directed, and Loneli-
ness) would remain intact, although other dimensions
might be added and the proportion of experiences fall-
ing in each category might vary.
As we have noted, psychologists have largely
neglected to study solitude; however, in light of the obvi-
ous 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 men-
tal 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 mea-
sures of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on November 19, 2014
Long et al. / SOLITUDE 583
A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close rela-
tionships. New York: Guilford.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for soli-
tude. 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 depres-
sion and anxiety. Journal of Psychology, 66, 303-313.
Diener, E., Emmons, A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satis-
faction with life scale: A measure of life satisfaction. Journal of Per-
sonality 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 Person-
ality 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 Sci-
ences, 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 soli-
tude. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Modell, A. (1993). The private self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity 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 experi-
ence 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 construc-
tion of emotions (pp. 184-208). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Received August 27, 2001
Revision accepted September 5, 2002