The Handbook of Solitude

130 Wellman, H.M., Lane, J.D., LaBounty, J.D., & Olson, S.L. (2011). Observant, nonaggressive temperament predicts theory of mind development. Developmental Science, 14, 319–326.

131 Wellman, H. & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of Theory‐of‐Mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.

132 White, L.K., McDermott, J.M., Degnan, K.A., Henderson, H.A., & Fox, N.A. (2011). Behavioral inhibition and anxiety: the moderating roles of inhibitory control and attention shifting. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 735–747.

133 Wilson, D.S., Clark, A.B., Coleman, K., & Dearstyne, T. (1994). Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9, 442–446.

134 Xu, Y., Farver, J.M., Chang, L., Zhang, Z., & Yu, L. (2007). Moving away or fitting in? Understanding shyness in Chinese children. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 527–556.

135 Xu, Y., Farver, J.M., Yang, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2008). Chinese children’s conceptions of shyness: a prototype approach. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 54, 515–544.

136 Xu, Y., Farver, J.M., Yu, L., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Three types of shyness in Chinese children and the relation to effortful control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1061–1073.

137 Zimbardo, P.G. (1977). Shyness: What Is It and What To Do About It. New York: Symphony Press.

1 *The first three authors contributed equally to writing of this chapter and are listed here in alphabetical order. The writing of this chapter was supported by operating grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) awarded to LAS, and also a SSHRC Vanier Doctoral Scholarship awarded to RH, a SSHRC Graduate Scholarship and Ontario Graduate Scholarship awarded to TLM, and a CIHR Doctoral Scholarship and an Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Fellowship from the American Psychological Foundation awarded to KLP.Please address all correspondence to: Louis A. Schmidt, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada, email: schmidtl@mcmaster.ca

Mario Mikulincer 1, Phillip R. Shaver 2, and Inbal Gal 1

1Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Israel

2University of California Davis, USA

Being together and being alone are two core human experiences that have both rewarding and aversive aspects and can have both positive and negative implications for well‐being and psychosocial functioning (e.g., Coplan et al., 2018; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2010). In the current chapter, we focus on the experience of being alone and propose an attachment‐theoretical (Bowlby, 1973, 1982, 1988) perspective for explaining individual differences in attitudes toward solitude and feelings of loneliness. Specifically, we propose that a sense of attachment security (a belief that one can trust others and can confidently expect that they will be available and responsive when needed) provides a solid foundation for enjoying periods of solitude and developing a capacity to be comfortably alone. In contrast, attachment insecurities interfere with this capacity and transform solitude into an undesirable experience of loneliness. We begin with a brief summary of adult attachment theory and provide an account of the sense of security and the two major dimensions of attachment insecurity, anxiety, and avoidance. Next, we review findings on the interpersonal manifestations of attachment insecurities. Then we propose an attachment perspective on solitude and loneliness and review empirical research concerning attachment‐related differences, during adolescence and adulthood, in the experience of being alone.

One of the core tenets of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982) is that human beings are born with a psychobiological system (the attachment behavioral system ) that motivates them to seek proximity to significant others ( attachment figures ) in times of need. According to Bowlby (1982), the goal of this system is to maintain adequate protection and support, which is accompanied by a subjective sense of safety and security. This goal is made salient when people encounter actual or symbolic threats and notice that an attachment figure is not sufficiently near, interested, or responsive (Bowlby, 1982). In such cases, a person’s attachment system is upregulated and the person is motivated to increase or reestablish proximity to an attachment figure so that “felt security” (Sroufe & Waters, 1977) is attained.

Bowlby (1988) assumed that although age and development increase a person’s ability to gain comfort from internal, symbolic representations of attachment figures, no one at any age is completely free from reliance on actual others. The attachment system therefore remains active over the entire life span, as indicated by adults’ tendency to seek proximity and support when threatened or distressed (Zeifman & Hazan, 2016). Moreover, people of all ages are capable of becoming emotionally attached to a variety of relationship partners (e.g., siblings, friends, romantic partners, coaches, and leaders), using such people as “stronger and wiser” attachment figures (Bowlby, 1982) – i.e., as safe havens in times of need and secure bases from which to explore and develop skills – and suffering distress upon prolonged or permanent separation from these people (Bowlby, 1980; Fraley & Shaver, 2016).

Bowlby (1973) devoted a great deal of attention to individual differences in attachment‐system functioning that arise as a result of the availability, responsiveness, and supportiveness of a person’s key attachment figures, especially in times of need. Interactions with attachment figures who are available, sensitive, and supportive in times of need facilitate: (1) the smooth functioning of the attachment system; (2) promote a sense of connectedness and security; and (3) strengthen positive mental representations ( working models ) of self and others. In contrast, when attachment figures are not reliably available and supportive: (1) a sense of security is not attained; (2) worries about one’s social value and others’ intentions become ingrained; and (3) strategies of affect regulation other than proximity seeking are developed ( secondary attachment strategies , characterized by anxiety and/or avoidance ).

When studying individual differences in attachment‐system functioning in adults, attachment research has focused primarily on attachment orientations (or styles ) – patterns of relational expectations, emotions, and behaviors that result from internalizing a particular history of attachment experiences (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Research, beginning with Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) and continuing through scores of recent studies by social and personality psychologists (for a review see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), indicates that attachment styles are conceptually located in a two‐dimensional space defined by two roughly orthogonal dimensions, attachment anxiety and attachment‐related avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998). The avoidance dimension reflects the extent to which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill and defensively strives to maintain behavioral independence and emotional distance. The anxiety dimension reflects the extent to which a person worries that a partner will not be available in times of need, partly because of the person’s self‐doubts about his or her own love‐worthiness. People who score low on both dimensions are said to be secure with respect to attachment. A person’s location in the two‐dimensional space can be measured with reliable and valid self‐report scales (e.g., the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, ECR, Brennan et al., 1998), and this location is associated in theoretically predictable ways with a wide variety of measures of relationship quality and psychological adjustment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).