The Handbook of Solitude

Xu and colleagues (2007) identified two distinct types of shyness in Chinese children, anxious shyness and the regulated shyness. Anxious shyness is a type of shyness that has been studied extensively in Western societies; anxious‐shy children experience fear and low self‐confidence in social situations and are concerned about social evaluation. In contrast, regulated shyness refers to acquiescent, nonassertive, and unassuming behaviors such as “behaving modestly” and “not showing‐off,” in social interactions. Different from anxious‐shy children, regulated‐shy children constrain their social initiative and activities in order to fit in the group and maintain group harmony. It is argued that children displaying regulated shyness are perceived as well‐behaved and polite (Özdemir & Cheah, 2015). A common feature of anxious shyness and regulated shyness is the low frequency of interactions that children display in social settings. According to Xu and Krieg (2014), however, the two types of shyness are associated with different adjustment outcomes. Research results have indicated that regulated shyness is positively associated with higher peer preference, effortful control, and prosocial behavior, and negatively associated with loneliness and internalizing problems, whereas anxious shyness is positively associated with social and psychological difficulties (Xu et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2008). Özdemir and colleagues (2015) also identified these two types of shyness and found that they were similarly associated with indexes of adjustment among children in Turkey.

An interesting question is whether nonanxious regulated shyness, which seems to represent a regulated behavior based on self‐control, is similarly associated with positive adjustment outcomes across cultures (Chen, 2019). It appears reasonable to argue that the pattern of associations between regulated shyness and adjustment is cross‐culturally similar although the magnitude of the associations may be greater in cultures, such as East Asian cultures, that place higher value on the regulation of behaviors. A related issue is the associations seem to reflect the constructive role of behavioral regulation, which tends to be positively valued and encouraged in most societies (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2009). If this is the case, Xu et al.’s work (2007) may be largely concerned with comparisons of shyness and regulation (or regulation in a specific form such as “not showing‐off”), rather than different types of shyness. It will be interesting to examine these issues in future research.

Among the various forms or types of social solitude or withdrawal, shyness has received the most attention from researchers perhaps because: (1) it is believed to indicate social incompetence or failure to satisfy the personal desire for social interaction; (2) it is associated with negative emotions, such as fear, anxiety, and dissatisfaction; and (3) it represents a risk factor in the development of psychopathological outcomes (Rubin et al., 2009). Nevertheless, there is emerging interest in recent years in other types of children’s social withdrawal. Among these types, unsociability has received increased attention from researchers, who have investigated its nature and developmental significance often in comparison with those of shyness (e.g., Chen et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2015). According to Asendorpf (1990), whereas shyness is derived from a combination of high approach and high avoidance motivations in social settings, unsociability may reflect a combination of low approach and low avoidance motivations. Unsociable children have a low desire to initiate or participate in social activities but may not avoid interaction when others approach them (Asendorpf, 1993). In other words, although unsociable children initiate fewer social interactions than sociable children, they do not turn down social invitations (Bowker & Raja, 2011). Moreover, when involved in social interactions, they can demonstrate adequate social skills and be engaged similarly as their sociable peers (Asendorpf & Meier, 1993).

There are different, and even conflictual, arguments in the literature about the nature of unsociability in Western children. On the one hand, the theories that emphasize the role of social interactions in social and cognitive development (e.g., Cooley, 1902; Hartup, 1996; Piaget, 1932) suggest that unsociable children may miss out on the opportunity to learn from others and to practice their interpersonal skills, such as cooperation, negotiation, and problem‐solving, in social settings. As a result, these children may develop inappropriate behaviors, lack social support systems, and fall behind others in social and cognitive areas. In this sense, the developmental outcomes of unsociability may be similar to those of shyness. On the other hand, children in Western societies are expected and encouraged to develop autonomy and self‐direction (Grolnick, 2012; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Unsociability as a form of preference for solitude may be regarded as an autonomous expression of personal choice (Coplan & Armer, 2007; Leary et al., 2003). Thus, unlike shyness, unsociability may not indicate social failure or incompetence. Indeed, unsociability in early childhood, which is mostly indexed by solitary, quiet behavior (i.e., quiet exploration and solitary constructive activities) in social settings, is regarded as relatively benign (Coplan et al., 2018; Rubin, 1982). In adolescence and adulthood, engagement in solitary activities or spending time alone for self‐exploration, self‐reflection, or stress reduction is also thought to have benefits for well‐being (e.g., Goossens, 2014; Larson, 1997; Leary et al., 2003; Long & Averill, 2003).

The results of limited studies seem to show that unsociability is not necessarily associated with social and psychological problems (e.g., Asendorpf & Meier, 1993; Coplan et al., 2019; Harrist et al., 1997). Coplan et al. (2004) found that unsociability was related to longer attention span and less negative emotionality than shyness. Harrist et al. (1997) found no significant differences between unsociable children and nonwithdrawn children; both were more competent than shy children on social‐information processing tasks and teacher‐rated social performance. Similarly, Coplan and Weeks (2010) found that unsociable children reported more positive school attitudes than others. Some findings indicate that relative to sociable children, unsocial children are viewed as less likable by others (e.g., Coplan et al., 2007; Coplan & Weeks, 2010). However, it appears to be the case that unsociable children are not more vulnerable than others to internalizing problems, such as depressive symptoms, loneliness, and social anxiety (Coplan et al., 2004; Coplan & Weeks, 2010; Coplan et al., 2013). Nelson and Evans‐Stout (2019) found that teachers viewed unsociability as indicated by solitary‐passive behavior as less undesirable than shy‐reticent behavior in kindergarten and elementary school children. Bowker and Raja (2011) argue that because they do not actively avoid opportunities for peer engagement, unsociable children may get just enough social interaction, which may allow them to avoid potential harms associated with social isolation. From a cultural perspective, the relatively “benign” outcomes of unsociability in Western children are inevitably related to the values of autonomy, self‐decision, and personal choice in the society. These values help reduce negative social evaluation and associated stress and distress that unsociable children experience.

In societies where interdependence and group affiliation are highly emphasized (Chen, 2010; Greenfield et al., 2006), individuals are encouraged to develop social connectedness and integration and commitment to the group. Children and adolescents are required to function in group context and to contribute to group well‐being (Chen & French, 2008). Unsociability and preference for solitude are inconsistent with group orientation and are likely to lead to social disapproval in these societies. Unlike shy children, who have the desire to interact with peers but the social approach tendency is inhibited by social fear and anxiety (Asendorpf, 1991), unsociable children display a lack of intention to interact with, and maintain distance from, others. Peers are likely to recognize the behavioral manifestations of shy and unsociable children derived from different social motivations and react differently to them in interactions. In the group‐oriented context, whereas shy children may obtain support from others to engage in interactions, unsociable children may be perceived as deviant, selfish, and anti‐collective and thus may be isolated from others and have low social status (Chen et al., 2011). The undesirable social experiences of unsociable children in turn may result in school difficulties and emotional problems, such as social dissatisfaction and feelings of depression.