then the choice to spend time alone might be relatively adaptative, and thus, associated with more positive outcomes because it matches or is consistent with cultural values and norms. However, and perhaps not surprisingly given the complex and multidimensional nature of solitude, it appears that the impacts of culture on the causes and consequences of solitude are extremely complex and nuanced.
For example, there is some evidence to suggest that extraversion is more strongly predictive of well‐being in Western cultures (particularly North America) than in non‐Western cultures, because of the high value placed on being outgoing and sociable in these societies (Kim et al., 2016). Similarly, shyness more strongly predicts indices of negative life quality in Western as compared to East Asian cultures (Rapee et al., 2011). As well, because of the value placed on sociability in the West, children who play alone in the presence of peers (e.g., at preschool or in the schoolyard) tend to evoke negative responses from their classmates (Coplan et al., 2013; Hart et al., 2000).
Yet, Western cultures are thought to also value independence and self‐reliance (Marjoribanks, 1994). In this regard, the personal choice to spend time alone appears to be acknowledged as a normative belief in such societies (Bowker et al., 2020), and in and of itself, a non‐fearful preference for solitude is relatively accepted by others (Nelson, 2013). However, in other cultures (e.g., China) that value devotion to interdependence and the collective (e.g., peer group) over the individual, the decision to remove oneself from the collective (for any reason) may be viewed as selfish and deviant (Chen, 2019), and responded to quite negatively (Liu et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Nelson et al., 2012). But, it has also been argued that East Asian cultures place greater value and are more likely to encourage humble and socially unassertive behaviors, because they maintain group harmony and promote collectivistic values (Schreier et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2007). Finally, it should be noted that not all Western cultures view sociability in the same way. For example, Finish culture places a high value on quietness and the ability to be “comfortable in silence” (Berry et al., 2004, p. 270).
These are just a few examples of the complexities involved in considering aspects of solitude across cultures. It is only in understanding the cultural context for why a solitary behavior may be seen as adaptive or problematic that we begin to see the situation clearly and accurately. Thus, we need to be cautious about broadly categorizing certain forms of solitude as either “good” or “bad” when, instead, it is really only by understanding the cultural context within which the solitary behavior is enacted that we that we can begin to understand why the behavior may be perceived positively or negatively, and more importantly, how it may lead to positive or negative outcomes in the lives of individuals.
Technology and social media.
Finally, beyond culture, there is another context that is reshaping how we think about solitude. Today, people’s social interactions are not limited to face‐to‐face encounters or to speaking on the telephone. Instead, technological advances have made computer‐mediated communication not only possible but prevalent in our daily lives. Indeed, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tic Toc, FaceTime, Skype, text messaging, and numerous other platforms for computer‐mediated communication had become part of the everyday world that has expanded the way we interact on a daily basis.
As a result of this, it is absolutely essential that we examine what solitude means in this digital context. For example, there is no real consensus about at what point increasingly interactive technologies would render someone as no longer “alone” (i.e., scrolling through social media feeds vs. commenting and responding to posts vs. exchanging texts in real time vs. direct audio communication vs. direct audio‐visual communication). Indeed, for decades, scholars have examined individual differences in tendencies (both motivations and actual behaviors) to move toward or away from interactions in social settings. Now, the digital world in which we live demands that we expand our research to examine the meaning and impact of moving toward or away from social interaction in technologically mediated contexts.
Emerging work is already pointing to individual differences in, among other things, the use of connective forms of media (forms of media that have the potential to connect individuals to others such as e‐mail; Nelson et al., 2016), the extent of interaction that occurs when using digital forms of communication (e.g., how people interact on social media; Scott et al., 2018), and the role of technology in maintaining relationships (e.g., use and content of text messages between friends and romantic partners; e.g., Rideout & Robb, 2018). Just as we can identify meaning and outcomes associated with withdrawing from in‐person settings, we are starting to see that there is meaning and impact to be found in what it means to engage in solitude in the context of a digitally connected world. For example, emerging work is showing that individual differences in whether and how (i.e., competently or not) a person engages in computer‐based interactions can be linked to indices of adjustment and maladjustment (e.g., empathy, loneliness, self‐esteem, prosocial behaviors, aggression; Brody, 2018; Kim & Lee, 2011; Lapierre, 2020; Nelson et al., 2016). Taken together, it is impossible to approach a volume devoted to understanding the meaning and impact of solitude in contexts without examining it in the digital age in which we now live.
Overview of the New Edition of this Handbook
The chapters in this second edition of the Handbook of Solitude provide the reader with a mix of updated perspectives and research on topics covered in the first handbook, as well as all new chapters examining original topics related to solitude. Although we have expanded our coverage of important topics related to solitude, we still examine solitude from multiple psychological perspectives, during different developmental periods across the life span, and across a broad range of contexts. Moreover, the contributing authors represent a “who’s who” of international experts in their related areas.
The first section of this volume focuses on theoretical approaches to understanding various aspects of solitude. The section provides a balance of perspectives that, in some chapters, examine the adaptive and beneficial aspects of solitude, with other chapters that employ a lens revealing the potentially problematic aspects of solitude. To begin, Hassan, MacGowan, Poole, and Schmidt (Chapter 2) explore the possible adaptive function of shyness from evolutionary and neuroscientific perspectives. From a very different lens, Mikulincer, Shaver, and Gal (Chapter 3) describe the contribution of attachment theory to our understanding of loneliness in the face of solitude. In having these two chapters open the book, the reader is immediately challenged to think about both positive and negative aspects of solitude and, at the same time, the role of both biology and the environment (e.g., the family) in understanding the display of solitude, its meaning, and its impact. In their chapter, Zeytinoglu and Fox (Chapter 4) examine the effects of social deprivation and social isolation on developmental outcomes by demonstrating how work with animals (nonhuman) provide important models to understand the potential effects of deprivations in social experiences. Then, Galanaki (Chapter 5) returns the reader to a perspective that examines the benefits of solitude as she provides psychoanalytic perspectives of the solitary self, including the ability to be alone, the necessity of being alone, as well as the companionable nature of solitude. The section concludes with Chen and Liu (Chapter 6) providing a chapter that lays a foundation for the importance of considering culture as a context for solitude as they examine culture, social withdrawal, and development. Taken together, this opening section lays the conceptual framework for the rest of the book by underscoring that an examination of the good and the bad of solitude must consider the role of biology, the influence of factors in the immediate environment (e.g., family, peers), and the effect of the broader context (culture) in which solitude occurs.
The second section of the book is organized to present the study of solitude in different developmental stages across the life span spanning the years from early