Content uploaded by Liad Uziel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liad Uziel on Jul 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Alone, Unhappy, and Demotivated: The
Impact of an Alone Mind-Set on Neurotic
Individuals’ Willpower
Liad Uziel
1
Abstract
This study explored how a mind-set associated with being alone affects self-regulation among individuals varying in neuroticism.
Neuroticism is associated with a dualistic approach to the social world—evaluation apprehension alongside need for approval.
Consequently, in public contexts, neuroticism leads individuals to experience low pleasantness alongside high motivation. The
impact of neuroticism on behavior alone is rarely studied. However, the absence of a social motivator (i.e., potential for approval)
should bring neuroticism to be associated with low pleasantness alongside low motivation. Three studies supported these pre-
dictions using an alone/public social context mind-set manipulation. Higher neuroticism was associated with lower declared
willingness to exert effort (Study 1) and with lower actual effort expenditure (Studies 2a, 2b) in an alone mind-set than in a public
mind-set. Additionally, across conditions, neuroticism was associated with low pleasantness. Thus, neuroticism reduces indi-
viduals’ willpower in the context of merely thinking about being alone.
Keywords
neuroticism, aloneness, public social context, self-control, motivation, willpower
Being alone could be experienced as pleasurable and rejuvenat-
ing or as unpleasant and demotivating. Although many factors
could potentially affect one’s alone experience, the present
research focused on the role of the trait neuroticism. In partic-
ular, the present study asked—and explored with three
experiments—how neuroticism affects individuals’ willingness
and ability to self-regulate as a function of the mere thought of
being alone (vs. in public).
Neuroticism refers to individual differences in the extent to
which people experience the world as threatening, problematic,
and distressing (Watson, Clark, & Harkness, 1994). High neu-
roticism is characterized by self-criticism, a sense of inability
to cope with challenging events, a feeling of uncontrollability,
and frequent intense negative emotions such as anxiety, depres-
sion, and guilt (Barlow, Ellard, Sauer-Zavala, Bullis, & Carl,
2014; Watson et al., 1994; Widiger, 2009).
Neuroticism is a highly influential trait. Its influence is read-
ily apparent across many life domains. It has been associated
with increased risk for psychopathology (Watson & Naragon-
Gainey, 2014), poor well-being (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz,
2008), impaired job performance (Judge,Locke, Durham, &
Kluger, 1998), an increased risk for physical illnesses (Smith
& MacKenzie, 2006), and low life expectancy (Roberts, Kun-
cel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). That is, neuroticism is a
core personality dimension that negatively affects all major
aspects of functioning (Lahey, 2009).
Neuroticism and Social Behavior
In spite of its widespread influence, the bulk of research on
neuroticism has not explored its impact on social behavior. The
studies that have been conducted document undesired out-
comes. Neuroticism has been associated with unsatisfying
romantic relations and marital life (Karney & Bradbury,
1995; McNulty, 2008), conflicted interpersonal relationships
(Suls, Martin, & David, 1998), lack of social support (Kendler,
Gardner, & Prescott, 2002), difficulty in social integration
(Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001), and diminished
leadership skills (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002).
However, little is known about the dynamics that lead high
neuroticism (high-N) individuals to end up having unsatisfying
relationships. One possible route resides with the duality that
characterizes their approach to interpersonal relationships. On
the one hand, dependency and a strong need to belong (Born-
stein, & Cecero, 2000; Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer,
2013) make high-N individuals motivated to maintain social
1
Psychology Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Liad Uziel, Psychology Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900,
Israel.
Emails: liaduziel@gmail.com; liad.uziel@biu.ac.il
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
2016, Vol. 7(8) 818-827
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550616657597
spps.sagepub.com
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
connections. On the other hand, rejection sensitivity, negativity
bias, and anxiousness (Barlow et al., 2014; Downey & Feld-
man, 1996) make social interactions stressing, threatening, and
often frustrating for them (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999).
Their poor self-control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004)
imposes constraints on high-N individuals’ ability to adjust
their responses to meet their interpersonal goals. As a result,
high (vs. low) neuroticism often leads individuals to experience
a combination of high motivation and negative feelings in
social contexts.
Neuroticism and Being Alone
Could being alone serve high-N individuals better than being in
public? Research has yet to address this question. More gener-
ally, research on the effects of (everyday, not imposed) solitude
condition is relatively limited (Long & Averill, 2003), even
though solitude occupies much of people’s waking hours (esti-
mates range between 25%and 60%; Larson, 1990; Mehl &
Pennebaker, 2003).
Most research on solitude has emphasized negative implica-
tions. Time spent alone is considered less pleasant and is asso-
ciated with loneliness, boredom, and negative mood (Larson,
1990; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1980; Matias, Nicolson, &
Freire, 2011). However, studies have also discovered beneficial
effects to spending time alone. When alone, one can contem-
plate on personal issues, self-reflect, and develop oneself
intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally (Galanaki, 2004;
Goossens, & Marcoen, 1999; Larson, 1997; Storr, 1988). Accord-
ingly, some people find being alone an attractive and a sought-
after experience (Hagemeyer, Neyer, Neberich, & Asendorpf,
2013).
There are reasons to expect that being alone will not be an
attractive experience or a character-building mechanism
among high-N individuals. Theory (Winnicott, 1958) and data
(Burke, 1992; Larson & Lee, 1996) have attributed the capacity
to be alone to psychological adjustment. High-N individuals’
adjustment difficulties (Watson et al., 1994) are likely to limit
their ability to find comfort in solitude. Findings support this
rationale. High-N individuals associated aloneness with loneli-
ness (Long, Seburn, Averill, & More, 2003) and—in an expe-
rience sampling study—with increased stress (Matias et al.,
2011). Accordingly, neuroticism was negatively associated
with a desire to be alone (Hagemeyer et al.,2013; Teppers
et al.,2013).
The feeling of loneliness that high-N individuals experience
while alone (Hagemeyer et al., 2013) stems in part from the fact
that this condition thwarts their ability to gain social approval
(Leary et al., 2013). This has significant implications for their
motivation to exert self-control. Research shows that loneliness
impairs willingness to exert self-control (Baumeister, DeWall,
Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Cacioppo & Hawkley,2009), and
in the absence of motivation, actual self-control ability is seri-
ously impaired (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012; Muraven & Sles-
sareva, 2003). That is, without social stimuli to relate to, being
alone is likely to bring about a demotivating sense of
purposelessness the higher one scores on neuroticism, which
may be expressed in reduced willingness to exert self-control.
The Current Research
The present study’s main question concerned the impact of an
alone experience on the self-regulatory behavior of individuals
high (vs. low) in neuroticism. It was expected that neuroticism
will interact with social condition such that higher neuroticism
will be associated with less willingness (and consequently with
impaired ability) to exert self-control in an alone condition than
in a public condition. This question was explored in three
experiments. Study 1 was focused on willingness to engage
in various activities that require self-control, and Studies 2a and
2b were focused on behavioral expressions of self-control.
Participants were primed to adopt either an alone or a public
social context mind-set (cf. Uziel & Hefetz, 2014). A mind-set
manipulation overcomes objective difficulties in creating real
alone condition—true to one’s private experience—in con-
trolled laboratory settings (Griffin, 2001; Uziel, 2007). It over-
comes this limitation by extracting the essence of the
experience as it is chronically represented in participants’
minds and by that allows studying alone and public conditions
comparably in experimentally controlled settings. The mind-
set procedure also allowed addressing a secondary issue of
unobtrusively analyzing the level of pleasantness that partici-
pants attribute to being alone/in public.
Study 1
Study 1 explored the effect of alone (vs. public) condition on
willingness to exert self-control. It was expected that higher
neuroticism would be associated with reduced willingness to
exert self-control following an alone mind-set than a public
mind-set.
Method
Participants and Procedure
University students (N¼93; M
age
¼24.99; SD ¼3.34; 69
women) were recruited for an online study on personality and
daily activities. Sample size was determined based on the effect
sizes and sample sizes of recent related studies (Keller & Pfat-
theicher, 2011; Lambert et al., 2003; Uziel & Hefetz, 2014) and
by conducting a power analysis. Based on existing studies,
effect sizes were expected to be moderate (i.e., total R
2
¼
.15). A power analysis software (G*Power; Faul, Erdfelder,
Lang, & Buchner, 2007) advised þ70 participants for an
80%power, which was the goal of the data collection
procedure.
Participants started the experiment by completing a neuroti-
cism scale. Then they were randomly assigned to either the
alone or the public social context mind-set condition. After the
mind-set manipulation, participants were asked about their
willingness to engage in activities that require self-control.
Uziel 819
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Upon completion, participants answered demographic ques-
tions, were debriefed, and thanked.
Materials
Neuroticism. Neuroticism was measured with the short version
of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (EPQ-RS;
Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985; e.g., ‘‘Are your feelings
easily hurt?’’), using a 4-point Likert-type response format
(1 ¼definite no,2¼no,3¼yes,4¼definite yes). Reliability
was high (a¼.90).
1
Alone/public social context mind-set manipulation. The participants
were primed to adopt either an alone (n¼47) or a public
(n¼46) social context mind-set by completing six identical
sentences with a single word or a short sentence: ‘‘when I
am by myself, I ... ’’ (alone)or‘‘whenIaminthecom-
pany of others, I ...’’ (public). Participants had to provide a
different answer to each sentence. Past research has docu-
mented the effectiveness of similar priming techniques
(Haley & Fessler, 2005; Keller & Pfattheicher, 2011), and
this task was applied successfully in an earlier study (Uziel
& Hefetz, 2014).
Pleasantness. In order to assess the level of pleasantness in the
context of being alone/in public, responses on the mind-set task
were evaluated. Each response to the six identical stimulus sen-
tences was rated by two independent judges for level of plea-
santness. Total scores could range from 6(6responses
expressing unpleasantness; e.g., Iam... bored, anxious)to
þ6 (6 responses expressing pleasantness; e.g., Iam... happy,
excited). Interrater agreement was high (Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient [ICC]¼.91), and ratings were averaged to a single
score.
Willingness to exert self-control. Willingness to engage in self-
regulatory behavior was measured by asking participants to
rate (on a 4-point scale, from 1 ¼completely unwilling to
4¼completely willing) the extent to which they were willing
to do six demanding activities if required to do so right now
(see Kesebir, 2014, for a similar measure). All activities
involved exertion of self-control, such as persistence and
patience. The activities were (1) organize assorted documents
at home; (2) clean the entire house; (3) solve a difficult cross-
word puzzle; (4) get dental treatment; (5) wait in a long line at
the bank; and (6) read a boring book to the end. Reliability was
reasonable (a¼.65) considering the diversity of activities. Par-
ticipants’ ratings were averaged.
Results
Manipulation Check
In order to verify responsiveness to the social context priming,
two independent raters (blind to condition allocation) judged
the responses to the stimulus sentences with regard to the extent
that they reflect an alone or a public context by noting refer-
ences to (or mentions of) other people (from 1 ¼alone context
to 5 ¼public context). Judges’ ratings were in high agreement
(ICC ¼.92) and were averaged to a single score. Participants in
the alone mind-set condition (M¼1.46, SD ¼0.54) differed
significantly from participants in the public mind-set condition
(M¼4.38, SD ¼0.59), t(91) ¼24.75, p< .001, Cohen’s d¼
5.18, indicating that participants adopted the mind-set of their
assigned condition.
Main Analyses
The main hypothesis was that higher neuroticism (M¼2.47,
SD ¼0.53) would be associated with lower willingness to exert
self-control (M¼2.70, SD ¼0.49) following an alone mind-set
than a public mind-set. To test this hypothesis, willingness to
exert self-control was regressed on neuroticism (centered) and
on mind-set condition (0 ¼alone;1¼public)inStep1and
also on their interaction in Step 2. Table 1 summarizes the
findings.
2
As seen in Table 1, Step 1 yielded no effect for neuroticism
or for the mind-set condition. Importantly, Step 2 revealed that
neuroticism and mind-set condition had a significant interac-
tion. Probing the interaction (Figure 1) revealed that in the
alone condition neuroticism had a significant negative associa-
tion with willingness to exert self-control, b¼0.29, standard
error [SE]¼0.12, 95%confidence interval [CI]: [0.54,
0.05], t(89) ¼2.39, p¼.019, Z
2
p
¼.060, whereas in the pub-
lic condition there was a nonsignificant positive effect of neu-
roticism on willingness to exert self-control, b¼0.16, SE ¼
0.15, 95%CI [0.14, 0.46], t(89) ¼1.05, p¼.29, Z
2
p
¼.012.
A second set of analyses explored the level of pleasantness
that participants expressed in the context of being alone/with
others. For that purpose, the level of pleasantness (M¼0.54,
SD ¼2.64) was regressed on neuroticism and on mind-set
Table 1. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting Willingness to Exert Self-Control From Neuroticism and Mind-
Set Condition (Step 1) and Their Interaction (Step 2) in Study 1.
Predictor bSE(b) 95% CI tdfpZ
2
p
Neuroticism 0.11 0.09 [0.31, 0.08] 1.13 90 .260 .014
Mind-set
a
0.03 0.10 [0.17, 0.23] 0.29 90 .775 .001
Neuroticism Mind-Set 0.46 0.19 [0.07, 0.84] 2.34 89 .022 .058
Note.N¼93. CI ¼confidence interval; SE ¼standard error.
a
Alone ¼0, public ¼1.
820 Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(8)
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
condition in Step 1 and also on their interaction in Step 2. Table
2 summarizes the results. Step 1 revealed a negative effect for
neuroticism. In addition, an effect was found for the mind-set
condition, indicating greater pleasantness in the public mind-
set compared to the alone mind-set. Step 2 indicated no inter-
action effect.
Discussion
Study 1 demonstrated a negative effect for neuroticism on will-
ingness to exert self-control in an alone (vs. public) condition.
This is compatible with the idea that when alone, neuroticism
leaves individuals lacking an important motivating force in the
form of potential to gain social approval. In addition, across
condition, neuroticism was associated with low pleasantness.
Study 2a
Study 1 focused on declared willingness (i.e., motivation) to
exert self-control. Study 2a measured behavior. Specifically,
this study explored how neuroticism affects performance on a
tedious task after adopting an alone mind-set versus a public
mind-set. It was expected that higher neuroticism would be
associated with impaired performance more following the
alone mind-set than following the public mind-set.
Method
Participants and Procedure
University students (N¼75; M
age
¼25.40; SD ¼7.15; 60
women) were recruited for an online study on personality and
language. Participants started the experiment by completing a
neuroticism scale. Then they were randomly assigned to expe-
rience either an alone or a public social context mind-set. Par-
ticipants were then asked to solve anagrams,whichisa
prevalent and effective measure of self-control ability
(Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Upon completion, parti-
cipants answered demographic questions before being
debriefed and thanked.
Materials
Neuroticism. As in Study 1, neuroticism was measured with the
EPQ-RS (Eysenck et al., 1985;a¼.85).
Alone/public social context mind-set manipulation. Alone (n¼33)
and public (n¼42) social context mind-sets were primed with
the same sentence completion task from Study 1.
Pleasantness. As in Study 1, the level of pleasantness that parti-
cipants expressed in the context of being alone/in public was
judged by analyzing responses in the mind-set task. The ratings
by two independent judges were in high agreement (ICC ¼.88)
and were averaged to a single score.
Anagrams task. For a behavioral measure of self-control, parti-
cipants were required to work on anagrams task. Anagrams are
an effective measure of self-control because they require
repeated attempts of building and breaking letter combinations
along with an ability to withstand frustration. Participants were
informed that several of the (16) anagrams might be unsolvable
(in fact, all were solvable) and that their goal was to solve as
many anagrams as possible. No time limit was set. Performance
was evaluated by counting the number of anagrams solved cor-
rectly (i.e., by counting solutions in which all the specified let-
ters were used to regenerate the target word or an alternative
meaningful word).
Results
Manipulation Check
As in Study 1, two independent raters judged the responses to
the stimulus sentences with regard to the extent that they reflect
an alone or a public context. Judges’ ratings (ICC ¼.88) were
averaged to a single score. Participants in the alone mind-set
condition (M¼1.48, SD ¼0.52) differed significantly from
participants in the public mind-set condition (M¼4.48,
SD ¼0.58), t(73) ¼23.47, p< .001, Cohen’s d¼5.49, indicat-
ing that they adopted the mind-set of their assigned condition.
Main Analyses
The main analysis explored the effect of neuroticism
(M¼2.42, SD ¼0.44) on the number of anagrams solved
(M¼10.08, SD ¼2.95) in the two mind-set conditions. For
that purpose, the number of anagrams solved was regressed
on neuroticism (centered) and on mind-set condition (0 ¼
alone;1¼public) in Step 1 and also on their interaction in Step
2.TheresultsaresummarizedinTable3.Step1revealeda
negative effect for neuroticism and no effect for the mind-set
condition. Importantly, Step 2 revealed a significant interac-
tion. Probing the interaction (Figure 2) showed that in the alone
Figure 1. Willingness to exert self-control as a function of neuroti-
cism and the social context mind-set condition (Study 1).
N¼Neuroticism.
Uziel 821
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
condition neuroticism had a negative association with the
number of anagrams solved, b¼3.03, SE ¼0.85, 95%CI
[4.72, 1.33], t(71) ¼3.56, p< .001, Z
2
p
¼.151, whereas
in the public condition there was a nonsignificant effect of neu-
roticism on the number of anagrams solved, b¼0.76, SE ¼1.31,
95%CI [1.85, 3.39], t(71) ¼0.58, p¼.56, Z
2
p
¼.005.
A second set of analyses explored the level of pleasant-
ness that participants experienced in the context of being
alone/with others. For that purpose, the level of pleasantness
(M¼0.77, SD ¼2.49) was regressed on neuroticism and on
mind-set condition in Step 1 and also on their interaction in
Step 2 (see Table 2). Step 1 revealed a negative effect for
neuroticism. There was also a significant effect for mind-
set condition, indicating that participants associated being
with others with more pleasantness than being alone. Step
2 found no interaction effect. That is, as was the case in
Study 1, across conditions, neuroticism was associated with
low pleasantness. In addition, and also consistent with Study
1, the experience in a public context was more pleasant than
the experience alone.
Discussion
Study 2a extended Study 1 by showing that neuroticism has a
negative impact on performance in a self-control task in an
alone mind-set. In addition, like in Study 1, across conditions,
neuroticism was associated with low pleasantness.
Study 2b
Study 2b sought to replicate and extend Study 2a with a new
sample under a more controlled environment. The following
changes were implemented in the procedure: First, partici-
pants were in a laboratory, and thus were working under a
more controlled and contextually neutral (not really alone and
not really in public) setting compared to the previous online
study. Second, a central thesis promoted in this research is
that neuroticism is associated with reduced willingness to
Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting the Number of Anagrams Solved From Neuroticism and Mind-Set
Condition (Step 1), and Their Interaction (Step 2) in Study 2a.
Predictor bSE(b) 95% CI tdfpZ
2
p
Neuroticism 1.91 0.74 [3.38, 0.44] 2.59 72 .012 .085
Mind-set
a
1.08 0.66 [0.22, 2.39] 1.65 72 .103 .036
Neuroticism Mind-Set 3.79 1.57 [0.67, 6.93] 2.42 71 .018 .076
Note.N¼75. CI ¼confidence interval; SE ¼standard error.
a
Alone ¼0, public ¼1.
Figure 2. Number of anagrams solved as a function of neuroticism
and the social context mind-set condition (Study 2a).
N¼Neuroticism.
Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Predicting Pleasantness From Neuroticism and Mind-Set Condition (Step 1)
and Their Interaction (Step 2) in Studies 1, 2a, and 2b.
Study Predictor bSE(b) 95% CI tdf p Z
2
p
Study 1 Neuroticism 1.69 0.49 [2.66, 0.73] 3.48 90 <.001 .118
Mind-Set
a
1.02 0.51 [0.01, 2.03] 2.01 90 .048 .043
Neuroticism Mind-Set 0.17 0.99 [2.14, 1.80] 0.17 89 .863 .000
Study 2a Neuroticism 1.31 0.59 [2.49, 0.13] 2.22 72 .030 .064
Mind-set
a
1.92 0.52 [0.88, 2.97] 3.67 72 <.001 .158
Neuroticism Mind-Set 1.41 1.29 [1.17, 3.99] 1.09 71 .280 .016
Study 2b Neuroticism 1.15 0.54 [2.23, 0.07] 2.11 79 .038 .053
Mind-set
a
0.18 0.48 [1.13, 0.77] 0.39 79 .700 .002
Neuroticism Mind-Set 0.09 1.09 [2.26, 2.09] 0.08 78 .936 .000
Note.N¼93, 75, and 82, for Studies 1, 2a, and 2b, respectively. CI ¼confidence interval; SE ¼standard error.
a
Alone ¼0, public ¼1.
822 Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(8)
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
exert effort in an alone condition. To test this issue directly,
the time that participants spent on the anagrams task was
also measured.
Method
Participants and Procedure
University students (N¼82; M
age
¼22.99; SD ¼3.76; 58
women) were recruited for a study on personality characteris-
tics. Upon arrival at the lab, they were directed to an experi-
mental room equipped with a computer where they
completed the experiment alone. The experiment started with
aneuroticism scale. Participants were then randomly assigned
to experience either an alone or a public social context mind-
set. After the mind-set manipulation, participants were asked
to solve anagrams. Upon completion, participants answered
demographic questions, were debriefed, and thanked.
Materials
Neuroticism. Neuroticism was measured with the EPQ-RS
(Eysenck et al., 1985; a¼.84).
Alone/public social context mind-set manipulation. Alone (n¼40)
and public (n¼42) social context mind-set were primed with
the same sentence completion task from Studies 1 and 2a.
Pleasantness. As in the previous studies, the level of pleasant-
ness that participants expressed in the context of being alone/
in public was judged by analyzing responses in the mind-set
task. The ratings by two independent judges were in agreement
(ICC ¼.84) and were averaged to a single score.
Anagrams task. Akin to Study 2a, participants’ level of beha-
vioral self-control was assessed on an anagrams task. Like in
Study 2a, participants were informed that several of the (40)
anagrams might be unsolvable (in fact, all were solvable) and
that their goal is to solve as many anagrams as possible. No
time limit was set, but time was measured. Performance was
evaluated by counting the number of anagrams solved correctly
(number of anagrams; see Study 2a) and by recording the dura-
tion that participants spent working on the task from the time it
was presented on the computer screen until the answers were
submitted (work time).
Results
Manipulation Check
As in the previous studies, two independent raters judged the
responses to the stimulus sentences with regard to the extent
that they reflect an alone or a public context. Judges’ ratings
(ICC ¼.96) were averaged to a single score. Participants in the
alone mind-set condition (M¼1.16, SD ¼0.28) differed sig-
nificantly from participants in the public mind-set condition
(M¼4.69, SD ¼0.38), t(80) ¼47.16, p< .001, Cohen’s
d¼10.54, indicating that they adopted the mind-set of their
assigned condition.
Main Analyses
The main analysis explored the effect of neuroticism
(M¼2.20, SD ¼0.43) on the number of anagrams solved
(M¼24.10, SD ¼10.15). For that purpose, the number of ana-
grams solved was regressed on neuroticism (centered) and on
mind-set condition (0 ¼alone;1¼public) in Step 1 and also
on their interaction in Step 2. Table 4 summarizes the results. In
Step 1, the analysis yielded no effect for neuroticism or for the
mind-set condition. Step 2 revealed a significant interaction.
Probing the interaction (Figure 3) showed that in the alone con-
dition neuroticism had a significant negative association with
the number of anagrams solved, b¼7.42, SE ¼3.72, 95%
CI [14.84, 0.01], t(78) ¼1.99, p¼.049, Z
2
p
¼.048,
whereas in the public condition there was a nonsignificant
effect for neuroticism, b¼3.41, SE ¼3.82, 95%CI (4.20,
11.03), t(78) ¼0.89, p¼.37, Z
2
p
¼.010. Put simply, neuroti-
cism was associated with poorer performance in the alone
mind-set compared with the public mind-set.
In order to address participants’ motivation to exert effort,
time spent working on the anagrams task was assessed
(M
seconds
¼685.07, SD ¼429.77). Time on the task was
regressed on neuroticism and on mind-set condition in Step 1
andalsoontheirinteractioninStep2.Table4presentsthe
results. In Step 1, there was no effect for neuroticism or for the
mind-set condition. Step 2 revealed a significant interaction.
Probing the interaction (Figure 4) showed that in the alone con-
dition neuroticism had a significant negative association with
work time, b¼329.66, SE ¼148.10, 95%CI [624.52,
34.80], t(78) ¼2.22, p¼.029, Z
2
p
¼.059, whereas in the
public condition there was a marginally significant positive
effect for neuroticism, b¼262.33, SE ¼150.11, 95%CI
[36.53, 561.19], t(78) ¼1.75, p¼.08, Z
2
p
¼.038. That is,
neuroticism was associated with less willingness to exert effort
in the alone mind-set than in the public mind-set.
To the extent that willingness to exert effort (i.e., work time)
accounts for the number of anagrams solved, it should mediate
the effect of the interaction of neuroticism and mind-set condi-
tion on the number of anagrams solved. In order to establish
mediated moderation, several criteria need to be met (Muller,
Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005): First, the interaction between neuroti-
cism and mind-set condition in predicting the number of ana-
grams solved should be significant (as was found; see Table 4).
Second, the interaction between neuroticism and mind-set condi-
tion in predicting work time should be significant (as was found;
see Table 4). Third, controlling for all other variables, work time
should predict the number of anagrams solved. This was indeed
the case, b¼0.01, SE ¼0.002, 95%CI [0.01, 0.02], t(77) ¼
6.32, p< .001, Z
2
p
¼.341. Finally, controlling for work time
should reduce the effect of the interaction between neuroticism
and mind-set condition in predicting the number of anagrams
solved. This was also found, b¼2.54, SE ¼4.34, 95%CI
[6.10, 11.19], t(77) ¼0.58, p¼.560, Z
2
p
¼.004. That is,
Uziel 823
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
performance on the task was dependent on participants’ willing-
ness to exert effort.
A final set of analyses explored the level of pleasantness that
participants experienced in the context of being alone/in public.
For that purpose, the level of pleasantness (M¼0.70, SD ¼
2.18) was regressed on neuroticism and on mind-set condition
in Step 1 and also on their interaction in Step 2 (see Table 2).
Step 1 yielded a significant effect for neuroticism but no effect
for the mind-set condition. Step 2 indicated no interactive
effect. That is, again, across conditions neuroticism was asso-
ciated with low pleasantness.
Discussion
Study 2b replicated the results of Study 2a in showing that neu-
roticism was associated with impaired self-control in an alone
mind-set but not in a public mind-set. It extended Study 2a by
stressing the role of motivation in affecting performance.
General Discussion
Three studies uncovered an interaction effect, whereby neuro-
ticism was associated with reduced willingness to self-regulate
in an alone mind-set than in a public mind-set. Study 1 found
that in an alone mind-set neuroticism was associated with
reduced willingness to engage in tedious everyday tasks. Stud-
ies 2a and 2b found that in an alone mind-set neuroticism was
associated with impaired behavioral expressions of self-
control. Study 2b pointed to the role of willingness to exert
effort as the factor responsible for impaired performance.
The present study suggested that these effects stem from the
association between neuroticism and need for social approval
(Leary et al., 2013). Specifically, the potential to gain others’
approvals stimulates effort expenditure (until resources are
depleted), and its absence—as in an alone condition—leads
to a state of demotivation. The present focus was on establish-
ing the behavioral effect and on attributing it to changes in
motivation. Future research should address the more concrete
mechanisms involved, notably, the mediating roles of need for
approval and feeling of loneliness. Moreover, although the
mind-set condition did not moderate the effect of neuroticism
on pleasantness, different processes might have caused low
pleasantness among high-N individuals in the two conditions.
Specifically, low pleasantness in the public context might have
stemmed from evaluation apprehension, whereas low pleasant-
ness in the alone context might have stemmed from despair.
These diverging affective responses should also be the focus
of future explorations.
Figure 3. Number of anagrams solved as a function of neuroticism
and the social context mind-set condition (Study 2b).
N¼Neuroticism.
Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Predicting the Number of Anagrams Solved and Work Time From
Neuroticism and Mind-Set Condition (Step 1), and Their Interaction (Step 2) in Study 2b.
Dependent Predictor bSE(b) 95% CI tdf p Z
2
p
Number of anagrams Neuroticism 2.00 2.59 [7.16, 3.15] 0.77 79 .442 .008
Mind-set
a
0.07 2.26 [4.49, 4.51] 0.00 79 .997 .000
Neuroticism Mind-set 10.85 5.07 [0.78, 20.95] 2.14 78 .035 .056
Work time Neuroticism 37.66 109.93 [256.46, 181.15] 0.34 79 .733 .001
Mind-set
a
27.48 96.05 [163.69, 218.66] 0.29 79 .775 .001
Neuroticism Mind-set 591.99 210.88 [172.15, 1011.83] 2.81 78 .006 .092
Note.N¼82. CI ¼confidence interval; SE ¼standard error.
a
Alone ¼0, public ¼1.
Figure 4. Work time on the anagrams task as a function of neuroti-
cism and the social context mind-set condition (Study 2b).
N¼Neuroticism.
824 Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(8)
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The findings have implications for research on neuroticism,
self-regulation, and aloneness. Research on neuroticism has
generally placed little emphasis on the moderating role of
social conditions in considering the trait’s impact on behavior.
The present findings (see also Uziel, 2007, 2015; Uziel & Bau-
meister, 2012) indicate that in the domain of self-control, social
context—specifically, the mere thought of a social context—is
an important moderator for neuroticism’s effects. Notwith-
standing, unlike previous studies (notably, Uziel & Baumeister,
2012), the present study revealed a relatively facilitative effect
for the public condition and an inhibitory effect for the alone
condition. Several methodological differences (e.g., the nature
of the alone condition) explain the seemingly different find-
ings, of which the most important difference is that Uziel and
Baumeister (2012; Studies 1 & 2) studied ‘‘residual effects’’
of being in a public context, whereas the present study explored
concurrent effects. That is, participants in Uziel and Baumeis-
ter (2012) were in a public context while working on an early
task, but they were alone when their performance was tested
on a subsequent task (i.e., after exerting effort in public). In
contrast, in the present study, participants performed a single
task that reflected their level of effort while being in a public
condition (mind-set). This difference is significant because it
highlights an important theoretical implication: High-N indi-
viduals’ strong motivation in public contexts helps them avoid
self-control failures for a (relatively short) period of time (until
motivation is no longer able to counter their limited resources;
Tangney et al., 2004).
Implications also exist for the self-control literature. The
present results agree with recent theoretical formulations that
underscored the role of motivation in affecting self-control per-
formance (Inzlicht & Schmeichel,2012), but they add some
nuances: First, motivation could be external to the task itself
(e.g., triggered by a social context); second, motivation is
highly affected by personality variables; and third, the impact
of motivation on subsequent performance is bounded, to some
extent, by one’s basic self-control resources, which could even-
tually be depleted (Vohs, Baumeister, & Schmeichel, 2012).
Finally, there are implications for the research on aloneness.
For the most part, research on the alone condition has relied on
correlational field studies (Larson, 1990). The present research
is among the first to address this condition experimentally. This
allowed the present research not only to distill the effects of
aloneness but also to broaden the point of reference by showing
that an alone mind-set (i.e., mere thought of being alone) is a
factor that should be considered. The present results have gen-
erally corroborated past findings in showing that aloneness is
not very pleasant (Matias et al., 2011), but they have also
showed that in addition to the effects on mood, aloneness caries
motivational effects among neurotic individuals with clear
behavioral implications.
There are several limitations to the present study. First, gen-
eralizability could have improved using alternative measures of
neuroticism. Although various measures of neuroticism are
highly correlated (e.g., Watson et al., 1994), having alternative
measures could have increased the robustness of the effects.
The same is true for self-control tasks. In addition, having a
direct measure of affect after the mind-set task might have pro-
vided a more rigorous approach for assessing the impact of the
manipulation on pleasantness. Furthermore, although the mind-
set manipulation presents some advantages, the lack of actual
alone/public conditions limits the external validity of the
findings.
In conclusion, research on the alone condition in general and
with reference to neuroticism in particular could provide new
understandings of ways toward greater well-being. The present
research offered a first step in addressing these questions, seek-
ing to establish the existence of basic effects and also to stimu-
late future experimental work on these topics.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
The online supplements are available at http://spps.sagepub.com/
supplemental.
Notes
1. Materials are fully reproduced in the supplemental materials.
2. Auxiliary analyses are presented in the supplemental materials.
References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who
attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractive-
ness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy,81, 116–132.
Barlow, D. H., Ellard, K. K., Sauer-Zavala, S., Bullis, J. R., & Carl, J.
R. (2014). The origins of neuroticism. Perspectives on Psychologi-
cal Science,9, 481–496.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M.
(2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,88, 589–604.
Bornstein, R. F., & Cecero, J. J. (2000). Deconstructing dependency in
a five-factor world: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality
Assessment,74, 324–343.
Burke, N. (1992). College psychotherapy and the development of a
capacity for solitude. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
6, 59–86.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation
and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 447–454.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensi-
tivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,70, 1327–1343.
Eysenck, S. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version
of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences,
6, 21–29.
Uziel 825
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power
3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,
39, 175–191.
Galanaki, E. (2004). Are children able to distinguish among the con-
cepts of aloneness, loneliness, and solitude? International Journal
of Behavioral Development,28, 435–443.
Goossens, L., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Adolescent loneliness, self-
reflection, and identity: From individual differences to devel-
opmental processes. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.),
Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 225–243). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, M. (2001). The phenomenology of the alone condition: More
evidence for the role of aloneness in social facilitation. The Journal
of Psychology,135, 125–127.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neu-
roticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,77, 1087–1100.
Hagemeyer, B., Neyer, F. J., Neberich, W., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2013).
The ABC of social desires: Affiliation, being alone, and closeness
to partner. European Journal of Personality,27, 442–457.
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2005). Nobody’s watching?: Subtle
cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution
and Human Behavior,26, 245–256.
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion?
Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-con-
trol. Perspectives on Psychological Science,7, 450–463.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Person-
ality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal
of Applied Psychology,87, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 17–34.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and
research. Psychological Bulletin,118, 3–34.
Keller, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of
being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Person-
ality,25, 363–372.
Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C., & Prescott, C. (2002). Toward a compre-
hensive developmental model for major depression in women.
American Journal of Psychiatry,159, 1133–1145.
Kesebir, P. (2014). A quiet ego quiets death anxiety: Humility as an
existential anxiety buffer. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology,106, 610–623.
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. Amer-
ican Psychologist,64, 241–256.
Lambert,A.J.,Payne,B.K.,Jacoby,L.L.,Shaffer,L.M.,Chasteen,
A. L., & Khan, S. R. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant responses:
On the ‘‘social facilitation’’ of prejudice in anticipated public
contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84,
277–295.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1980). The significance of time
alone in adolescent development. Journal of Current Adolescent
Medicine,2, 33–40.
Larson, R., & Lee, M. (1996). The capacity to be alone as a stress
buffer. The Journal of Social Psychology,136, 5–16.
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. W. (1997). The emergence of solitude as a constructive
domain of experience in early adolescence. Child Development,
68, 80–93.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S.
(2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the
nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment,95,
610–624.
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benefits
of being alone. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour,33, 21–44.
Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude
experiences: Varieties, settings, and individual differences.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 578–583.
Matias, G. P., Nicolson, N. A., & Freire, T. (2011). Solitude and cor-
tisol: Associations with state and trait affect in daily life. Biologi-
cal Psychology,86, 314–319.
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and interpersonal negativity: The
independent contributions of perceptions and behaviors. Persona-
lity and Social Psychology Bulletin,34, 1439–1450.
Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: A
psychometric analysis of students’ daily social environments and
natural conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy,84, 857–870.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,89, 852–863.
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control
failure: Motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,29, 894–906.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as
a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,74, 774–789.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R.
(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of per-
sonality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for pre-
dicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological
Science,2, 313–345.
Smith, T. W., & MacKenzie, J. (2006). Personality and risk of phys-
ical illness. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,2, 435–467.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship
between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin,134, 138–161.
Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self.NewYork,NY:
Ballantine Books.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and
its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to
interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 88–98.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and
interpersonal success. Journal of Personality,72, 271–324.
826 Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(8)
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Teppers, E., Klimstra, T. A., Van Damme, C., Luyckx, K., Vanhalst, J.,
& Goossens, L. (2013). Personality traits, loneliness, and attitudes
toward aloneness in adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,30, 1045–1063.
Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect:
Areviewandmeta-analysis.Journal of Research in Personality,
41, 579–601.
Uziel, L. (2015). Life seems different with you around: Differential
shifts in cognitive appraisal in the mere presence of others for neu-
roticism and impression management. Personality and Individual
Differences,73, 39–43.
Uziel, L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). The effect of public social con-
text on self-control depletion for neuroticism and restoration for
impression management. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,38, 384–396.
Uziel, L., & Hefetz, U. (2014). The selfish side of self-control.
European Journal of Personality,28, 449–458.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). Moti-
vation, personal beliefs, and limited resources all contribute to
self-control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48,
943–947.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness,A.R.(1994).Structuresof
personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology,103, 18–31.
Watson, D., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2014). Personality, emotions, and
the emotional disorders. Clinical Psychological Science,2, 422–442.
Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior
(pp. 129–146). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Winnicott, D. (1958). The capacity to be alone. International Journal
of Psychoanalysis,39, 416–420.
Author Biography
Dr. Liad Uziel is a Senior Lecturer at the Psychology Department in
Bar-Ilan University, Israel. His research focuses on individual differ-
ences in social behavior.
Handling Editor: Dominique Muller
Uziel 827
at Bar-Ilan university on November 2, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from