Content uploaded by Margarita Azmitia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margarita Azmitia on Nov 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence
Focus on methodology
Motivation matters: Development and validation of the Motivation
for Solitude Scale – Short Form (MSS-SF)
Virginia Thomas
a,∗
, Margarita Azmitia
b
a
Psychology, Wilmington College, 1870 Quaker Way, Wilmington, OH 45177, United States
b
Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Social Sciences 2, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, United States
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Solitude
Loneliness
Self-Determination Theory
Motivation
Adolescents
Emerging adults
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Motivation is an overlooked but crucial factor in determining whether solitude is
psychologically beneficial or risky. This paper describes the development and validation of the
Motivation for Solitude Scale - Short-Form (MSS-SF), a measure grounded in Self-Determination
Theory that differentiates between intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations for solitude.
Methods: Emerging adult (N = 803) and adolescent (N = 176) participants were recruited in
four successive samples from the United States for the purposes of scale development and vali-
dation. Participants completed an on-line survey that included the MSS-SF and various well-being
and personality measures.
Results & conclusions: Confirmatory Factor Analyses resulted in a two-factor solution, self-
determined solitude (SDS) and not self-determined solitude (NSDS), and showed the MSS-SF to be
reliable with adolescents and emerging adults, with satisfactory convergent and discriminant
validity. Engaging in solitude for extrinsic, not self-determined reasons was associated with
loneliness, social anxiety, and depressive symptomatology; in contrast, solitude chosen for in-
trinsic, self-determined reasons was positively correlated with well-being, for emerging adults in
particular. The MSS-SF goes beyond preference for solitude to distinguish two distinctly different
motivations for solitude, and in so doing, allows researchers to better understand the affordances
and risks of being alone for adolescents and emerging adults.
The phenomenon of being alone is complex. One's aloneness can be experienced as isolation, loneliness, or solitude, and these are
distinct constructs. Isolation is enforced solitude, sometimes used as a means of punishment such as solitary confinement, and is
generally not a constructive experience of aloneness (Galanaki, 2005;Storr, 1988). Whereas isolation is an objective state of being
separate from others, loneliness is subjective isolation, defined in the literature as a discrepancy between one's desired versus actual
emotional or social relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1982;Weiss, 1973). In contrast, solitude is defined as positive aloneness
(Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982), “the constructive use of time alone,” (Galanaki, 2013, p. 80), generally used for the purpose of engaging
in intrinsically motivated activities (Moustakas, 1972). Despite the conceptual distinctions between these three states of being alone,
research examining solitude has often conflated solitude with loneliness or isolation (Dahlberg, 2007;Gizatullina et al., 2016), or
attributed the preference for solitude to social anxiety or shyness (Cheek & Buss, 1981;Leary, 1983), rather than to any positive or
constructive motivation. This attribution contradicts theories positing solitude as a basic human need that spurs healthy psycholo-
gical development (Buchholz, 1997;Davies, 1996;Storr, 1988;Winnicott, 1958), and empirical research showing that comfort with
solitude and time spent alone correlate with well-being (Larson, Csikszentmihalyi, & Graef, 1982;Larson & Lee, 1996).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.004
Received 15 February 2018; Received in revised form 3 November 2018; Accepted 12 November 2018
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gina_thomas@wilmington.edu (V. Thomas), azmitia@ucsc.edu (M. Azmitia).
Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
0140-1971/ © 2018 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to demonstrate that motivation is a missing and crucial factor in determining whether
solitude is psychologically beneficial or risky; and second, to describe the development and validation of a short-form of the
Motivation for Solitude Scale (MSS; Nicol, 2006), a measure that distinguishes between adaptive and maladaptive motivations for
solitude.
1. Measurement problems in solitude research
Much of the empirical research is mixed, and sometimes contradictory, on whether engaging in solitude is advantageous or
detrimental to well-being. For example, multiple studies conducted by Larson and colleagues showed that time in solitude is cor-
related with enhanced mood regulation for adolescents in the U.S. (Larson, 1997;Larson et al., 1982). Yet they also found that time in
solitude led to increased feelings of loneliness and hostility (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1980). In another corpus of studies conducted
in Belgium, researchers found that an affinity toward aloneness predicted identity development and introspectiveness among ado-
lescents, but it also correlated with depression and social anxiety (Goossens & Marcoen, 1999). Finally, in one of the few studies of
solitude in adulthood, Larson and Lee (1996) found that while comfort with being alone was associated with psychological well-
being, adults who spent the most time alone were also more likely to be depressed. How does one account for these contradictory
findings? One explanation, offered by these researchers, is that solitude is a paradoxical experience, like “a medicine which tastes
bad, but leaves one more healthy in the long run” (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1978, p. 691). Thus, although potentially a painful or
uncomfortable experience, time in solitude may have “self-enhancing” functions that are worthwhile for mental and emotional health
(Galanaki, 2013, p. 82).
A more parsimonious explanation may be that psychometric questionnaires measuring solitude do not sufficiently distinguish the
constructive experience of solitude from its close cousins—loneliness, shyness, and social anxiety. While there are multiple validated
scales available for measuring loneliness, chief among them the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978) and the
Loneliness and Aloneness Scale for Children and Adolescents (LACA; Marcoen, Goossens, & Caes, 1987), scales measuring solitude are
fewer and less validated across populations. Perhaps the most widely used scale for measuring solitude is the Preference for Solitude
Scale (PSS; Burger, 1995). This scale was developed to measure individual differences in the preference for solitude, and to identify
people who appreciate the benefits of solitude. However, Burger (1995) found high correlations between a preference for solitude and
loneliness and neuroticism, both of which were unexpected results. These findings may have occurred because the measure does not
distinguish a person's motivation for solitude. Someone who is motivated to engage in solitude for intrinsic purposes such as self-
reflection, creativity, or the freedom to engage in pleasurable activities, may experience very different outcomes from someone who
is motivated to be alone because of peer rejection or social anxiety. Two individuals may score highly on the PSS and thus appear to
share a preference for solitude, but one moves toward solitude for constructive purposes, while the other withdraws from the social
sphere as a reactionary move. This is a crucial distinction.
Previous studies have pointed out the need to consider motivation and volition as moderators of the solitude experience. For
example, Leary, Herbst, and McCrary (2003) noted that the frequency and enjoyment of solitude in college students was predicted by
a high solitropic orientation, defined as a desire to engage in solitary activities, rather than a lack of desire to affiliate with others,
known as a low sociotropic orientation. Additionally, researchers from various labs have repeatedly documented that the presence of
volition (i.e. choosing to be alone) significantly increases the chance that the solitude experience will be positive or beneficial
(Larson, 1990;Long & Averill, 2003) and is correlated with lower levels of loneliness and increases in well-being (Chua & Koestner,
2008). More recently, Nguyen, Ryan, and Deci (2018), found that college students who were intrinsically motivated to be in solitude
exhibited lower stress levels, experienced more relaxation, and showed higher levels of well-being compared to college students who
were alone because of extrinsic reasons (i.e. feeling forced into solitude). Taken together, these studies emphasize the importance of
self-determination in predicting the psychosocial outcomes of solitude.
2. Self-Determination Theory as a theoretical lens
Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985,2000), proposes that motivational processes and their corresponding beha-
viors contribute importantly to one's growth and development. Self-determined behaviors facilitate the basic human needs of au-
tonomy, competence, and relatedness, and are in general intrinsically motivated; these aspects of self-determination serve to promote
well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Nicol (2006) developed the Motivation for Solitude Scale (MSS), grounded in SDT and designed
specifically to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for solitude. The MSS is composed of two subscales: Self-
Determined Solitude (SDS), which measures engagement in solitude for self-determined reasons such as a desire for contemplation,
creativity, or self-reflection; and Not Self-Determined Solitude (NSDS), which assesses engagement in solitude for not self-determined
reasons such as social anxiety, rejection by peers, or lack of friendships. In Nicol's (2006) validation study, the MSS successfully
differentiated between adaptive and maladaptive outcomes based on whether the motivation for solitude was self-determined or not.
For example, only not self-determined solitude correlated positively with loneliness and social anxiety, whereas self-determined
solitude showed no relationship with these negative outcome variables. Thus, the MSS represents an important contribution in
differentiating motivations and outcomes of time spent in solitude.
3. The present study
Despite its potential as a useful instrument, to our knowledge the MSS has not yet been utilized in psychological research. There
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
34
are three potential reasons for this. First, as the topic of an unpublished dissertation, the scale is difficult to obtain. Second, with 56
items, the scale's length represents a burden to participants; scholars have advocated for the development of short forms of lengthy
scales to reduce psychometric problems such as participant fatigue and missing data (Kline, 2005). Third, the MSS has not been
validated with an adolescent population. Much of the research on solitude and loneliness has been conducted with adolescents
because this stage marks the critical developmental juncture when both the capacity and desire for solitude and introspection
increase, and simultaneously when the risk of loneliness increases (Larson, 1997;Marcoen & Goossens, 1993;Wang, Rubin, Laursen,
Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2013). Despite these shortcomings, the MSS appears to be reliable, theoretically sound, and able to
fill the motivational gap in solitude scale development.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to: 1) develop and validate a short-form of the MSS with a similar population
(emerging adults) as Nicol's original study; 2) validate the short-form with adolescents, and 3) test for convergent and discriminant
validity with theoretically relevant personality and well-being measures. Many of these measures were included in Nicol's original
study of the MSS, including the Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995), the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987), and
Ryff's Psychological Well-being Scales (Ryff, 1989;Ryff & Keyes, 1995). We added several other measures of theoretical interest: the
Identity subscale of the Erikson Psychosocial Inventory Scale (EPSI; Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981), the CES-D Depression Scale
(Radloff, 1977), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (Heimberg et al., 1999), and the Extraversion subscale of the Big Five Inventory
(John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991;John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008).
4. Hypotheses
Drawing from previous research showing that volitional solitude correlated with identity development in young adults (Goossens
& Marcoen, 1999;Larson, 1997), we anticipated that for both the adolescent and emerging adult samples, only the SDS subscale of
the MSS-SF would positively correlate with identity development, whereas the NSDS subscale would have the opposite relationship
and negatively correlate with identity. We also expected to replicate Nicol's findings that the SDS subscale would positively correlate
with well-being, in particular personal growth, and that the NSDS subscale would negatively correlate with all six well-being sub-
scales. Furthermore, we anticipated that the MSS-SF would replicate Nicol's findings that the NSDS would positively correlate with
loneliness and social anxiety. In addition, we predicted that the NSDS would positively correlate with depressive symptomatology.
Finally, drawing on previous research showing a positive correlation between preference for solitude and introversion (Burger, 1995;
Nicol, 2006) we hypothesized that both subscales of the MSS would negatively correlate with extraversion. As a final check for
convergent validity, we anticipated that, similar to Nicol, we would find a positive correlation between both subscales of the MSS and
the Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995).
5. Method
5.1. Participants
Participants were recruited in four successive samples during 2013 and 2014. The first three samples (Scale Development Sample
1, Scale Development Sample 2, Emerging Adult Sample) consisted of undergraduate students enrolled at a university in California,
and the fourth sample (Adolescent Sample) consisted of adolescents from two high schools in the United States, one in Michigan and
the other in California.
Scale Development Sample 1. This sample consisted of 283 participants (75% female) who were diverse in ethnicity (50%
White; 29% Latino/a; 21% Asian American/Pacific Islander; 11% Other ethnicities). All but six participants were between the ages of
18–25; the remainder were between 26 and 35 years of age or declined to state their age.
Scale Development Sample 2. This sample consisted of 262 participants (71% female) who were diverse in ethnicity (48%
White; 27% Latino/a; 23% Asian American/Pacific Islander; 13% Other ethnicities). All but seven participants were all between the
ages of 18–25; the remainder were between 26 and 35 years of age or declined to state their age.
Emerging Adult Sample. This sample consisted of 258 participants (78% female) who were diverse in ethnicity (42% White;
35% Latino/a; 23% Asian American/Pacific Islander; 14% Other ethnicities), and all were between the ages of 18–25.
Adolescent Sample. This sample consisted of 176 participants (53% female) who were diverse in ethnicity (55% Latino/a; 40%
White; 7% African American; 6% Asian American/Pacific Islander; 6% Native American; 2% Other ethnicities). The average age of
adolescent participants was 16.03 years (SD = 1.20).
5.2. Procedure
Emerging adult participants were recruited through the university's psychology research participant pool, which consisted of
students enrolled in lower and upper division psychology courses. In return for participating, students received course credit.
Participants read a description of the study and if they elected to participate, they were electronically sent instructions for logging in
to the on-line survey, where they read and signed an informed consent document. The survey took 30–40 min to complete.
The high school participants were recruited from four mathematics classrooms at a high school in California, and from three
English classrooms at a high school in Michigan. In return for participating, students received extra credit in their classes. Only
students who obtained written parental consent participated. Their teachers provided them with access to a computer lab, where they
were given instructions for logging in to the on-line survey. The first page of the survey described the study and provided a place for
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
35
the adolescent to assent to participate. The survey took 20–30 min to complete. The first author of this paper was present in person or
by phone for the adolescent data collection to answer any clarifying questions that arose during the survey.
5.3. Measures
Motivation for Solitude Scale (MSS; Nicol, 2006). The MSS is a 56-item questionnaire with two subscales measuring self-
determined motivation for solitude (SDS) and not self-determined motivation for solitude (NSDS). The scale was given in three
iterations, reduced with each successive sample, as described in the Analysis section below: a 22 item version, a 19 item version, and
a 14 item version. The questionnaire provided participants with the prompt: “When I spend time alone, I do so because …” and then
instructed them to rate statements on a four-point scale from “not at all important” to “very important.” A sample item of the SDS
subscale is “I can engage in activities that really interest me.” A sample item of the NSDS subscale is “I feel anxious when I'm with
others.”
Preference for Solitude Scale (PSS; Burger, 1995). This scale has 12 forced-choice statements. A sample item is “I enjoy being
around people/I enjoy being by myself.”
Big Five Personality Questionnaire (BFI) (John et al., 1991;John et al., 2008). We utilized the short form of the extraversion
portion of this scale. The measure consists of eight statements which participants rate on a five point scale, from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree.” Sample items include “I am someone who is talkative” and “I am someone who is sometimes shy, inhibited”
(reverse coded).
Identity subscale of the Erikson Psychosocial Inventory Scale (EPSI; Rosenthal et al., 1981). The Identity subscale contains
twelve items that participants rate on a five point scale from “almost always true” to “hardly ever true.” A sample item is: “I've got a
clear idea of what I want to be.”
UCLA Loneliness Scale, short-form (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987;Russell et al., 1978). This scale measures the extent to which one
feels lonely in daily life by having participants rate eight statements on a four-point scale, from “never” to “always.” A sample item is
“I feel left out.”
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D is a self-report depressive symp-
tomatology scale validated for research on the general population as a way to determine whether individuals are currently de-
monstrating depressive symptoms. The measure asks participants to reflect on the past week and rate 20 statements on a four point
scale from “Rarely or none of the time” to “Most of the time.” A sample item is, “I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with
help from my family or friends.”
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Heimberg et al., 1999). This scale assesses the presence and extent of social phobia in an
individual. It contains two subscores; the first measures anxiety and avoidance behaviors around performing in public (Performance
subscore); the second measures anxiety and avoidance behaviors around social interaction (Social Interaction subscore). Participants
are asked to rate 24 statements along two different four-point scales assessing how much fear or anxiety they have about the
experience in the statement (from “none” to “severe”), and how much they avoid the experience in the statement (from “never” to
“usually”). A sample item from the Performance subscale is “Acting, performing, or giving a talk in front of an audience,” and a
sample item from the Social Interaction subscale is “Talking with people you don't know very well.”
Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff, 1989;Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This measure is comprised of six subscales: Autonomy, Positive
Relations with Others, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Purpose, and Self-Acceptance. Each subscale asks participants to rate nine
statements on a six point scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” A sample item from the Autonomy subscale is “Being
happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me.” A sample item from the Positive Relations with Others
subscale is “Most people see me as loving and affectionate.” A sample item from the Environmental Mastery subscale is “I am quite
good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life.” A sample item from the Personal Growth subscale is “I have a sense that
I have developed a lot as a person over time.” A sample item from the Purpose subscale is “I enjoy making plans for the future and
working to make them a reality.” A sample item from the Self-Acceptance scale is “I like most aspects of my personality.”
Due to time constraints, the adolescent version of the survey was briefer than the emerging adult version; it did not include the
Social Anxiety scales nor four of Ryff's Well-Being scales. We retained Autonomy because it is a core component of self-determination,
and Positive Relationships with Others, given concerns expressed in the literature that spending time alone is an indicator of isolation,
social rejection, and poor social competence (Cassidy & Asher, 1992;Gazelle & Druhen, 2009;Wang et al., 2013).
5.4. Analysis
Prior to administering the survey to Scale Development Sample 1 participants, we examined the items of Nicol's original scale and
selected items for removal based on a combination of the following three criteria: low factor loadings compared to other items on the
same scale, inadequate face validity, and redundancy in meaningful content among items. This resulted in reducing the original 56
item scale to 22 items. We ensured that assumptions for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were met, including adequate variability
and normal distribution of items, Keyser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett's test of sphericity, which
indicates whether there are sufficient non-zero correlations among measured variables to warrant an EFA. Using Cook's distance
(< 0.1) and Mahalanobis distances (< 25), we removed any cases that violated the recommended cut-offs (Tabachnik & Fidell,
2001).
Exploratory Factor Analysis with Scale Development Samples 1 and 2. Using the statistical software program SPSS 22, we
conducted EFA using maximum likelihood (ML) extraction with oblique rotation, the recommended method given that the data were
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
36
normally distributed (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). After determining that the two-factor solution was com-
parable to Nicol's original findings (2006), we reviewed items to determine whether to retain them in the scale, using high corre-
lations between items (> 0.80), low communalities (< 0.20), low factor loadings (< 0.40) and high cross-loadings (> 0.32) on the
pattern matrix as indicators of weak items. Items with standardized factor loadings greater than 0.40 were considered moderate, and
those above 0.50 considered strong (Costello & Osborne, 2005;Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). According to the above parameters, we
removed weak items and included the revised scale (19 items) in the survey for Scale Development Sample 2. We repeated this
process, removing weak scale items until we achieved a satisfactory solution with the Emerging Adult Sample (14-item scale). The
two-factor model from this third iteration of the scale explained 44.6% of the variance after rotation, higher than Nicol's original
model, which had explained 40% of the variance (Nicol, 2006). We retained Nicol's original labels for the two factors: Self-De-
termined Solitude (SDS; M= 21.60, SD = 5.22) and Not Self-Determined Solitude (NSDS; M= 10.04, SD = 4.24). The correlation
between the two factors was 0.22. Reliability for each of the factors was very good (8-item SDS subscale α = 0.81; 6-item NSDS
subscale α = 0.89). All of the items demonstrated satisfactory communality coefficients, Keyser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values, and
correlations between items, as well as sufficiently high factor loadings on the appropriate factor and sufficiently low loadings on the
opposite factor. Therefore, all of the items were retained and the 14-item scale became the final version of the short-form of the scale.
In the second stage of analysis we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the final 14-item scale with both the
Emerging Adult and Adolescent samples. Tests for the factorial validity of items in the CFAs were conducted using maximum-
likelihood estimation procedures using the lavaan R package (version 0.5–20). We used modification indices to determine the sta-
tistical fit of the model, including the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Stieger & Lind, 1980).
In the third stage of analysis we tested the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale by conducting correlation tests with
theoretically relevant personality and well-being measures. Finally, we compared the CFA results and correlation tests of the
emerging adult and adolescent samples to examine differential validity between age groups, and these results are described below.
6. Results
6.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Emerging Adult Sample. The MLM estimation option in lavaan was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates with robust
standard errors and the Satora-Bentler robust chi-squared test. The standardized factor loadings for the hypothesized 2-factor model
and their standard errors are presented in Table 1. The correlation between the two solitude factors was small (r= 0.21, z= 2.90,
p< .001), and all of the standardized factor loadings were moderately large (0.46–0.86). The goodness-of-fit statistics indicated
adequate model fit (χ
2
(76) = 161.40, p< . 001, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI = 0.05, 0.08]).
Adolescent Sample. The standardized factor loadings for the hypothesized two-factor model and their standard errors with the
adolescent sample are presented in Table 1. The correlation between the two solitude factors was small (r= 0.29, z= 3.56,
p< .001), and all of the standardized factor loadings were moderately large (0.47–0.81). The goodness-of-fit statistics indicate
adequate model fit (χ
2
(75) = 131.50, p< . 001, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI = 0.05, 0.09]). These results suggest that the
hypothesized two-factor model provides a good approximation to the factor structure of the 14-item MSS-SF for both emerging adult
and adolescent samples.
Table 1
Standardized factor loadings and standard errors generated by the CFA for MSS-SF, Emerging Adult Sample (N = 247) and Adolescent Sample
(N = 162).
Item SDS Emerging Adults NSDS Emerging Adults SDS Adolescents NSDS Adolescents
It sparks my creativity .48 (.06) 0 .52 (.08) 0
I enjoy the quiet .47 (.06) 0 .59 (.06) 0
Being alone helps me to get in touch with my spirituality .51 (.05) 0 .48 (.07) 0
It helps me stay in touch with my feelings .69 (.04) 0 .47 (.08) 0
I value the privacy .55 (.05) 0 .67 (.05) 0
I can engage in activities that really interest me .65 (.05) 0 .59 (.08) 0
It helps me gain insight into why I do the things I do .69 (.05) 0 .65 (.07) 0
I feel energized when I spend time by myself .65 (.05) 0 .65 (.05) 0
I feel anxious when I'm with others 0 .67 (.05) 0 .70 (.06)
I don't feel liked when I'm with others 0 .77 (.05) 0 .81 (.05)
I can't be myself around others 0 .68 (.05) 0 .61 (.08)
I regret things I say or do when I'm with others 0 .66 (.05) 0 .60 (.07)
I feel uncomfortable when I'm with others 0 .84 (.04) 0 .79 (.06)
I feel like I don't belong when I'm with others 0 .87 (.03) 0 .81 (.06)
Note: SDS = Self-Determined Solitude; NSDS = Not Self-Determined Solitude.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
37
6.2. Convergent and discriminant validity
To test for convergent and discriminant validity, we conducted correlation tests with several personality and well-being measures.
Emerging Adult Sample. Results are reported in Table 2. To summarize, it appears that, as predicted, the more these emerging
adults experienced their solitude as self-determined (SDS), the more likely they were to experience significantly higher levels of self-
acceptance and personal growth; however, we found no correlation between SDS and the other four well-being scales. Furthermore,
the more they experienced their solitude as not self-determined (NSDS)—in other words less voluntary or more controlled by
others—the more significantly they exhibited poor well-being, low identity development, and low extraversion, and reported high
levels of loneliness and social anxiety. Contrary to what we predicted, SDS scores did not correlate positively with identity devel-
opment, nor did they correlate negatively with extraversion. It is important to note that both the SDS and NSDS subscales positively
correlated with the Preference for Solitude Scale, the implications of which we address in the Discussion.
Adolescent Samples. We predicted that the relationships between the MSS-SF subscales and outcome variables would follow the
same directional patterns as the emerging adult sample, which we anticipated would replicate Nicol's original findings. Results are
reported in Table 3. Unexpectedly, for adolescents the SDS scale positively correlated with depressive symptomatology (r= 0.17,
p< .05). However, as predicted, the NSDS scale also correlated with symptoms of depression, and this correlation was stronger
(r= 0.58, p< .01). Furthermore, adolescents who experienced their solitude as not self-determined (NSDS) reported significantly
higher levels of loneliness, and exhibited significantly lower levels of identity development, autonomy, and positive relationships
with others. Finally, we again found that only the NSDS negatively correlated with extraversion, and both the SDS and NSDS
subscales positively correlated with the Preference for Solitude Scale.
6.3. Differential validity
We conducted an independent samples t-test to compare adolescents' and emerging adults' mean scores of both MSS-SF subscales.
There was a significant difference in the scores of the self-determined solitude (SDS) subscale, with emerging adults scoring higher on
the scale (M= 21.60, SD = 5.22) than adolescents (M= 19.40, SD = 5.18); t(431) = 4.324, p= .000. In contrast, there was no
difference in the scores of the not self-determined solitude (NSDS) subscale; in fact, mean scores were nearly identical between
emerging adults (M= 10.04, SD = 4.24) and adolescents (M= 10.03, SD = 4.36).
Finally, as seen in Tables 2 and 3, correlations between the MSS-SF subscales and the well-being and personality variables were
virtually identical in both strength and direction for the emerging adult and adolescent samples, with the exception of depression,
Table 2
Well-being correlates of self-determined versus not self-determined solitude among emerging adults.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Self-determined solitude (SDS) –
2. Not self-determined solitude (NSDS) .19** –
3. Identity .12 -.54** –
4. Personal Growth .20** -.30** .39** –
5. Autonomy .09 -.27** .44** .42** –
6. Positive Relationships .08 -.55** .51** .57** .36** –
7. Mastery .06 -.52** .68** .50** .52** .63** –
8. Purpose .07 -.42** .60** .60** .38** .59** .71** –
9. Self-acceptance .15* -.49** .69** .59** .48** .65** .77** .71**
10. Loneliness -.03 .63** -.59** -.38** -.29** -.70** -.57** -.48**
11. Social Anxiety –Performance .02 .40** -.43** -.16* -.24** -.20** -.35** -.19**
12. Social Anxiety –Interaction .08 .46** -.48** -.24** -.31** -.32** -.42** -.29**
13. Depressive Symptomatology -.01 .51** -.61** -.23** -.31** -.41** -.55** -.34**
14. Extraversion .04 -.41** .44** .28** .27** .42** .35** .32**
15. Preference for Solitude .29** .31** -.11 -.11 .11 -.23** -.04 -.05
M21.60 10.04 3.36 41.09 36.45 39.44 35.59 38.36
SD 5.22 4.24 .75 6.55 6.52 7.89 7.36 7.37
α .81 .88 .89 .75 .75 .84 .81 .81
Variables 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9. Self-acceptance –
10. Loneliness -.57** –
11. Social Anxiety – Performance -.27** .40** –
12. Social Anxiety – Interaction -.32** .47** .82** –
13. Depressive Symptomatology -.56** .57** .31** .34** –
14. Extraversion .36** -.52** -.44** -.51** -.23** –
15. Preference for Solitude -.09 .27** .25** .31** .04 -.43** –
M36.65 17.00 48.51 39.43 28.11 3.17 6.03
SD 8.50 5.33 12.03 10.96 10.82 .81 2.97
α .88 .85 .89 .90 .91 .86 .78
*p< .05 **p< .01.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
38
which showed a significant positive correlation with the SDS scale only for adolescents. After testing for equality of Pearson cor-
relation coefficients, we found no significant differences in any of the associations between the two samples, including depression
(z= −1.638, p= .101). Thus, it appears that both subscales of the MSS-SF predict similar outcomes for adolescents and emerging
adults.
7. Discussion
Results from this study indicate that the MSS-SF is a valid and reliable measure of the motivation for solitude for both emerging
adult and adolescent populations. The resulting factor structure supports the notion of two separate constructs: self-determined
versus not self-determined motivations for solitude. Rather than combining scores from each subscale into a motivational total, scores
from each subscale stand alone and can be compared.
Each subscale can serve as a distinct variable useful for making predictions about well-being and psychosocial adjustment. In
particular, the SDS subscale showed no relationship with loneliness or social anxiety, whereas the NSDS subscale positively correlated
with depression, loneliness, and social anxiety, and negatively correlated with well-being and identity development for both po-
pulations. Therefore, for those who score highly on the NSDS subscale, solitude may indeed be a lonely and isolating experience that
is neither constructive nor adaptive. These findings clarify the results of prior research showing that solitude is linked with social
isolation, peer rejection, and poor social competence (Cassidy & Asher, 1992;Gazelle & Druhen, 2009;Wang et al., 2013). Although
they may be entering solitude of their own volition—which past research indicates is crucial for a positive solitude experience (Larson
& Csikszentmihalyi, 1978)—adolescents and emerging adults who choose to be alone because of not self-determined reasons can be
characterized as having an extrinsic (i.e. forced or unchosen) motivation for solitude, which in turn may explain previous associations
between preference for solitude and poor psychosocial outcomes (Cramer & Lake, 1998;Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1980).
In contrast, individuals who report spending time alone frequently but who do so for self-determined reasons (i.e. scoring high on
the SDS subscale) appear to be intrinsically motivated to spend time alone for reasons such as seeking insight about their thoughts
and feelings, getting in touch with their spirituality, or engaging in creative pursuits (sample items on the subscale). Importantly,
individuals who engage in self-determined solitude do not appear to face the same risk for negative psychosocial outcomes as their
not self-determined counterparts. In fact, there are benefits: emerging adults who engaged in self-determined solitude displayed
higher well-being in the areas of self-acceptance and personal growth. However, when these two correlations were set aside, the SDS
subscale presented a more neutral picture of psychological adjustment than we expected. Although emerging adults who are self-
determined seekers of solitude did not report loneliness, social anxiety, or depression, they also did not have significantly elevated
levels of identity development, autonomy, or purpose. Our results paint a similar picture for adolescents, with the additional un-
expected finding that self-determined solitude positively correlated with depressive symptomatology, although it must be noted that
the correlation coefficient was small. This finding may be explained by previous research on the importance of solitude for mood
regulation (Larson et al., 1982), such that persistently low mood may drive adolescents to seek solitude to gain insight into their
thoughts and feelings. Indeed, recent research indicates that volitional solitude has an ameliorative effect on negative mood states
over time, and thus may serve a self-regulatory function (Nguyen et al., 2018).
Additionally, we found that mean SDS scores were significantly higher for emerging adults than adolescents, while mean NSDS
scores were virtually identical between the two populations. It may be that although the capacity for solitude may begin in ado-
lescence, it blossoms in emerging adulthood, a time when individuals have more control over their time and activities, and have
Table 3
Well-being correlates of self-determined versus not self-determined solitude among adolescents.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Self-determined solitude (SDS) –
2. Not self-determined solitude (NSDS) .27** –
3. Identity -.08 -.53** –
4. Autonomy .10 -.37** .44** –
5. Positive Relationships -.04 -.60** .65** .40** –
6. Loneliness -.08 .64** -.62** -.31** -.77** –
7. Depressive Symptomatology .17* .58** -.60** -.43** -.60** .60** –
8. Extraversion -.03 -.25** .39** .16** .41** -.45** -.17*
9. Preference for Solitude .34** .21** -.29** -.01 -.32** .29** .22**
M19.40 10.03 3.57 36.36 37.24 16.23 42.28
SD 5.18 4.36 .70 6.90 7.98 5.32 13.01
α .81 .88 .89 .75 .84 .85 .91
Variables 8 9
8. Extraversion –
9. Preference for Solitude -.35** –
M16.23 4.58
SD 5.32 2.76
α .86 .78
*p< .05 **p< .01.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
39
increased cognitive and emotional skills to constructively use solitude. This proposal is supported by recent research showing that
solitude's beneficial effects depend on developmental timing (Coplan, Ooi, & Baldwin, in press). Specifically, unsociability, (i.e. a non-
fearful, intrinsically motivated preference for solitude) appears to be maladaptive in late childhood and early adolescence, potentially
due to the negative evaluations elicited by peers when one withdraws from the social sphere. However, solitude becomes increasingly
adaptive as adolescents transition into emerging adulthood, when identity development and individuation take center stage (Kroger,
2006).
Finally, we obtained mixed results regarding our personality measures. We had hypothesized that both subscales of the MSS-SF
would correlate negatively with extraversion and positively with the Preference for Solitude Scale (PSS; Burger, 1995), given that
prior research – and indeed, the results of our present study – has consistently shown a negative correlation between those two latter
measures. However, while both the SDS and NSDS did correlate positively with the PSS, unexpectedly, only the NSDS correlated
negatively with extraversion. These findings suggest that solitude and introversion may not be as linked as previously conceptualized,
and introduces the relatively radical idea that extraverts are similarly motivated to engage in solitude, at least when it is self-
determined. It appears that not self-determined solitude remains the domain of introverts. These findings also indicate that the PSS
does not distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for solitude, given that both MSS-SF subscales correlate positively
with the PSS. These findings may explain previous contradictory results using the PSS, in which a preference for solitude, although
described as theoretically “related to positive wellbeing” (Burger, 1995, p. 86), nevertheless consistently correlates with loneliness
and social anxiety (Burger, 1995;Cramer & Lake, 1998). Our results replicated these findings with both the emerging adult and
adolescent samples, and indicated further that the PSS correlated positively with depressive symptomatology and negatively with
identity development for adolescents. Taken together, these findings indicate that the MSS-SF is a more nuanced measure of solitude
than the PSS, given that it distinguishes two different motivations, each of which lead to distinctly different outcomes.
8. Limitations and future research
A limitation of the original MSS (Nicol, 2006) and the current short-form we developed (MSS-SF) is that these studies were
conducted with participants living on the west coast of the U.S., with the exception of one sample from Michigan. To assess the
validity of the scale across other regions of the U.S. and in other countries, differential validity studies need to be conducted with
adolescents and emerging adults in diverse cultures, which may vary in beliefs about and opportunities for solitude. For example,
while loneliness is experienced across cultures, as they move through adolescence and into emerging adulthood, people in relatively
individualistic cultures may have more opportunities to be alone and come to value solitude, whereas in more interdependent
cultures, time alone may be viewed as taking away from communal relationships and youth may have fewer opportunities to be alone
(Rokach, 2007;Van Staden & Coetzee, 2010). Cross-cultural research would clarify the extent to which results from the present study
can be generalized to adolescents and emerging adults from around the world. On the one hand, replication of these results in diverse
cultural settings would lend credibility to claims that volitional solitude is a basic human need that promotes psychological ad-
justment (Buchholz, 1997;Storr, 1988;Winnicott, 1958). On the other hand, inconsistent success in replication could provide insight
into how cultures shape an individual's capacity for solitude as well as influence attitudes toward solitude, consistent with prior
research on the impact of culture on perceptions of shyness (Chen & French, 2008). To date the MSS-SF factor structure reported here
was replicated with a sample of South African adolescents (Dankaert, Guse, & van Zyl, 2017), and has furthermore been used to test
how cultural attitudes affect engagement with solitude (Van Zyl, Dankaert, & Guse, 2018).
Second, although we included multiple variables to test convergent and discriminant validity, the Preference for Solitude Scale
was the only solitude measure we included. To better understand how the constructs described by the MSS-SF relate to other
dimensions of aloneness, including both solitude and loneliness, future studies need to be conducted comparing the MSS-SF with, for
example, a measure describing the nine varieties of solitude experiences (Long, Seburn, Averill, & More, 2003), or the multi-di-
mensional Loneliness and Aloneness Scale for Children and Adolescents (LACA; Marcoen et al., 1987), particularly the Affinity for
Aloneness subscale which describes a positive attitude toward being alone.
9. Conclusion
One's motivation to be alone appears to be a crucial factor in determining whether or not solitude is a positive experience with
beneficial outcomes. The subscale Self-Determined Solitude (SDS) describes an engagement with solitude that is active, positive, and
intrinsically motivated. It appears to reflect an approach orientation toward solitude, otherwise conceptualized as a high solitropic
orientation—a high desire to enjoy activities alone rather than a low desire to spend time with others (Leary et al. (2003). This self-
determined motivation for solitude appears to be a benign version of the solitude experience, posing few to no psychosocial risks and
conferring benefits to emerging adults in particular. This pattern contrasts with the subscale Not Self-Determined Solitude (NSDS),
which describes a motivation to withdraw from the social sphere as a reactionary move, for example in response to real or perceived
peer exclusion, rather than an autonomous move toward solitude for intrinsic purposes. In other words, the NSDS appears to reflect a
low sociotropic orientation—the aversion or lack of desire to spend time with others. Furthermore, this motivational pattern poses
risks for psychosocial development, including loneliness, depressive symptomatology, and decreased well-being and identity de-
velopment. The development and validation of the MSS-SF provides researchers with the ability to distinguish between self-de-
termined and not self-determined motivations for solitude, and in so doing, allows us to better understand the affordances and risks of
being alone for adolescents and emerging adults.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
40
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Arda Cunningham and Dr. Doug Bonett for consulting with us on the conceptual and theoretical
aspects of this project, and for lending us their statistical expertise at various stages of analysis.
Appendix
The Motivation for Solitude Scale – Short Form (MSS-SF).
Questionnaire and Scoring Instructions.
Please take a moment to think about the time you spend alone. This could include the things you tend to do when you're alone,
what you think about, and how you feel. Rate the importance of each of the following statements as a reason that you spend time
alone.
For example, one item is “I enjoy the quiet.” Remember, we are not asking you to rate the extent to which you enjoy the quiet
when you are alone, but the IMPORTANCE of that as a reason that you spend time alone. If enjoying the quiet is a very important
reason that you spend time alone, you should check “Very important.” If it is not at all important as a reason you spend time alone,
you should check “Not at all important.”
“When I spend time alone, I do so because …”
Not at all Important Somewhat Important Moderately Important Very important
1 It sparks my creativity
2 I enjoy the quiet
3 I feel anxious when I'm with others
4 Being alone helps me get in touch with my spirituality
5 I don't feel liked when I'm with others
6 I can't be myself around others
7 It helps me stay in touch with my feelings
8 I regret things I say or do when I'm with others
9 I feel uncomfortable when I'm with others
10 I value the privacy
11 I can engage in activities that really interest me
12 I feel like I don't belong when I'm with others
13 It helps me gain insight into why I do the things I do
14 I feel energized when I spend time with myself
Scoring the Motivation for Solitude Scale – Short Form (MSS-SF).
Not at all important = 1.
Somewhat important = 2.
Moderately important = 3.
Very important = 4.
Factor 1: Self-determined solitude
Item #1 It sparks my creativity
Item #2 I enjoy the quiet
Item #4 Being alone helps me get in touch with my spirituality
Item #7 It helps me stay in touch with my feelings
Item #10 I value the privacy
Item #11 I can engage in activities that really interest me
Item #13 It helps me gain insight into why I do the things I do
Item #14 I feel energized when I spend time by myself
Factor 2: Not-self-determined solitude
Item #3 I feel anxious when I'm with others
Item #5 I don't feel liked when I'm with others
Item #6 I can't be myself around others
Item #8 I regret things I say or do when I'm with others
Item #9 I feel uncomfortable when I'm with others
Item #12 I feel like I don't belong when I'm with others
Sum the points per item and calculate the mean for each scale.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
41
References
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Buchholz, E. (1997). The call of solitude: Alone time in a world of attachment. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Burger, J. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85–108.
Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Development, 63, 350–365.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339.
Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children's social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591–616.
Chua, S. N., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on the role of autonomy in solitary behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 645–647.
Coplan, R. J., Ooi, L. L., & Baldwin, D. (January 2018). Does it matter when we want to be alone? Exploring developmental timing effects in the implications of unsociability. New
Ideas in Psychology (in press).
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research
and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
Cramer, K. M., & Lake, R. P. (1998). The preference for solitude scale: Psychometric properties and factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(2), 193–199.
Dahlberg, K. (2007). The enigmatic phenomenon of loneliness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 2, 195–207.
Dankaert, E. S., Guse, T., & van Zyl, C. J. J. (2017). Psychometric properties of the motivation for solitude scale-short form in a sample of South African adolescents. South African
Journal of Psychology, 00(0), 1–13.
Davies, M. G. (1996). Solitude and loneliness: An integrative model. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 24, 3–12.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4,
272–299.
Galanaki, E. P. (2005). Solitude in the school: A neglected facet of children's development and education. Childhood Education, 81(3), 128–132.
Galanaki, E. P. (2013). Solitude in children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Special Issue: Loneliness andSolitude in
Children and Adolescents, 50(3–4), 79–88.
Gazelle, H., & Druhen, M. J. (2009). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion predict social helplessness, upset affect, and vagal regulation in response to behavioral rejection by a
friend. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1077–1096.
Gizatullina, A., Satiyeva, S., Kunslyamova, T., Edigenova, A., Zhanna, Z., Burahanova, A., et al. (2016). Comparative analysis of gender and age differences in the visions of
solitude. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(20), 1–9.
Goossens, L., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Adolescent loneliness, self-reflection, and identity: From individual differences to developmental processes. In K. J. Rotenberg, & S. Hymel
(Eds.). Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 225–243). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hays, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (1987). A short form measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(1), 69–81.
Heimberg, R. G., Horner, K. J., Juster, H. R., Safren, S. A., Brown, E. J., Schneier, F. R., et al. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Liebowitz social anxiety scale. Psychological
Medicine, 29, 199–212.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big five inventory–versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W.
Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kroger, J. (2006). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Larson, R. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Experiential correlates of time alone in adolescence. Journal of Personality, 46, 677–693.
Larson, R. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1980). The significance of solitude in adolescent development. The Journal of Current Adolescent Medicine, 2, 33–40.
Larson, R. W., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone in daily experience: Loneliness or renewal? In L. A. Peplau, & D. P. Perlman (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research and therapy (pp. 40–53). New York, NY: Wiley.
Larson, R., & Lee, M. (1996). The capacity to be alone as a stress buffer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 5–16.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social, personality and clinical perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCrary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences,
35, 59–68.
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 33(1), 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(5),
578–583.
Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1993). Loneliness, attitude towards loneliness and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. In S. Jackson, & H.
Rondriguez-Tomé (Eds.). Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marcoen, A., Goossens, L., & Caes, P. (1987). Loneliness in pre- through late adolescence: Exploring the contributions of a multidimensional approach. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16, 561–577.
Moustakas, C. (1972). Loneliness and love. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nguyen, T. T., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Solitude as an approach to affective self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 92–106.
Nicol, C. C. (2006). Self-determined motivation for solitude and relationship: Scale development and validation(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts
International (Accession No. 2006-99010-059).
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Theoretical approaches to loneliness. In L. Peplau, & D. Perlman (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp.
123–134). New York: Wiley.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
Rokach, A. (2007). The effect of age and culture on the causes of loneliness. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(2), 169–186.
Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 10(6), 525–537.
Rubenstein, C., & Shaver, P. (1982). The experience of loneliness. In L. Peplau, & D. Perlman (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 206–223).
New York: Wiley.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–729.
Stieger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Iowa City, IA.
Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York: Free Press.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Staden, C. W., & Coetzee, K. (2010). Conceptual relationships between loneliness and culture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23, 524–529.
Van Zyl, C. C. J., Dankaert, E., & Guse, T. (2018). Motivation for solitude: A cross-cultural examination of adolescents from collectivist and individualist cultures in South Africa.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 697–706.
Wang, J. M., Rubin, K. H., Laursen, B., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2013). Preference-for-solitude and adjustment difficulties in early and late adolescence. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 0(0), 1–9.
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (1958). The capacity to be alone. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 416–420.
V. Thomas, M. Azmitia Journal of Adolescence 70 (2019) 33–42
42
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Journal of Adolescence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
