For those who choose to approach solitude with personal conviction, the state of being alone can bring the necessary balance and insight.

This essay was composed in November 2024 and uses MLA documentation.

In recent years, a drastic nationwide epidemic has entered the sphere of public awareness. The US Surgeon General calls it a “critical public health concern,” a “predictor of premature death and poor health,” and part of a “vicious cycle” into emotional disconnection, financial distress, and health problems (Office of the Surgeon General). For introverted readers, the name of this epidemic may come as a surprise, a disappointment, or even an offensive slight against their fundamental nature: the epidemic, it seems, is one of loneliness and social isolation. As health professionals decry the dangers of withdrawing from social situations, readers with a love for solitude may feel uneasy. Is their enjoyment of time alone merely a symptom of a rising health crisis? While dozens of studies emphasize and re-emphasize the dangers of loneliness, readers can find this evidence inconsistent with their lived experience. For some, solitude is rejuvenating, comforting, and healthy. Despite the negative effects of loneliness and social disconnection, there is a difference between the physical state of being alone and the subjective experience of loneliness, and the power of personal autonomy in solitude-seeking behaviors can allow for healthy periods of alone time.

Those who enjoy solitude may experience a knee-jerk reaction against claims of the dangers of loneliness. However, the adverse effects of increased loneliness and social isolation are difficult to dispute. Recent trends in the United States have demonstrated significant increases in time spent in isolation and a decline in social connectedness and companionship between neighbors, friends, and family members over the last several years (Fig. 1). Overall, individuals now spend less time engaging with people and more time alone than in previous decades. As social isolation grows in the United States, it brings a clear health backlash. The Surgeon General’s 2023 Advisory explains that “loneliness and social isolation increase the risk of premature death,” and a lack of sufficient social connection is connected to an increased risk of various diseases as well as anxiety, depression, and dementia. It is evident that social isolation is a present and growing problem in the United States, and its associated health issues are similarly on the rise.

Introverts may dispute the negative impacts of social isolation in their lives, but individuals who prefer solitude are not always exempt from experiencing the ill effects of loneliness. In fact, the opposite is often true. A recent study discovered that shy and withdrawn adolescents are more likely to benefit from “stable, high-quality close friendships” (Barstead et al.). Further, researchers Kiffer G. Card and Shayna Skakoon-Sparling found that social support from friends and family is associated more strongly with subjective happiness for introverts than extroverts (Card and Skakoon-Sparling). This finding suggests that individuals who gravitate toward solitude are at a higher risk of experiencing the harmful effects of decreased social connection. Deep, personal relationships are important for the well-being of introverts and extroverts alike, but introverts are often more susceptible to feelings of social isolation. As such, the arguments in favor of increasing one’s social engagement and decreasing solitary activities are based on concern for individuals who often seek alone time to their detriment.

Such findings, however, do not diminish the fact that many individuals with a solitropic orientation—those who prefer to spend their time in solitude rather than in interpersonal interaction—find solitude beneficial, even essential, for their emotional health. Loneliness and social isolation have clear negative consequences, but “loneliness is…a subjective experience that may or may not arise from the objective state of being alone” (Heu et al.). Social isolation often correlates with loneliness, but numerous exceptions to this rule suggest that social isolation itself is not the only cause of lonely feelings. For example, a report conducted in 2023 found that “while the highest rates of social isolation are found among older adults, young adults are almost twice as likely to report feeling lonely” (Office of the Surgeon General). Here, social isolation is not a predictor of subjective loneliness—instead, the older adults who experience higher levels of solitude feel less internal loneliness. Other research into social restrictiveness’s positive and negative effects articulates the difference between physical isolation and a lack of quality relationships (emotional isolation). Based on cultural levels of social restrictiveness, it is possible to experience physical isolation without experiencing emotional isolation and vice versa (Heu et al.).

Emotional distress as a result of social disharmony is not as much a result of solitude-seeking behaviors as it is of imbalanced behaviors. While excess social isolation contributes to health concerns, excess social interaction can cause similar unhealthy responses for many individuals as well—and not only highly introverted ones. In a study conducted by Dongning Ren, the researcher notes that “regardless of too much or too little solitude, more deviance from optimal level of solitude was associated with poor mental health…low energy level…and feeling of stress.” The researcher concludes that one’s healthy regulation of social interaction is similar to one’s regulation of food consumption (Ren). Hunger is a clear issue defined by growling stomachs and weak bodies, but the problem of overeating is less openly addressed and similarly problematic for an individual’s physical health. When circumstances fail to provide adequate opportunities for solitude, one may experience difficulty managing excessive social demands. The subjective feeling of loneliness is more closely tied to an inability to control one’s social balance needs than a preference for engaging in solitary activities.

This distinction holds true for multiple studies that bring personal autonomy into the equation: loneliness does not arise from merely being alone but instead from being alone due to circumstances outside one’s control. The difference between emotional isolation and solitude is a matter of choice—individuals who feel a lack of control over their alone time are likelier to experience loneliness than individuals who choose when and how they experience solitude. When a solitude-seeking behavior arises from external factors (ostracism, fear of peer responses, coercion, illness), it “carries greater costs and is more strongly related to maladaptive outcomes” than solitude-seeking behaviors out of a preference for being alone (Barstead et al.). Although in both situations, social withdrawal is the result, the first comes from a desire to avoid negative outcomes, whereas the other chooses to approach mindful states of solitude. The difference between approach-oriented and avoidance-oriented solitude contributes to the difference between physical solitude and internal loneliness. Often, those who withdraw from social settings due to external circumstances “are simultaneously motivated to approach and avoid peers,” which results in feelings of internal conflict and distress (Barstead et al.). They desire social interaction, but a more pressing surface-level motivation leads them to avoid it. However, individuals who seek solitude when they experience high-approach motivations toward time alone act in congruence with their internal needs and thus experience significantly lower levels of conflict and loneliness (Barstead et al.).

Motivations for solitude range from spirituality to anxiety to creativity to illness, with thousands of small nuances between. One study categorizes these motivations into Self-Determined Solitude (SDS) and Not Self-Determined Solitude (NSDS) (Thomas). SDS is defined as “active, positive, and intrinsically motivated…appear{ing} to reflect an approach orientation toward solitude,” and it is contrasted with NSDS, the desire to withdraw from social settings out of a low desire to spend time with others, often as a reaction against negative social stimuli. The mindset through which one chooses solitude has an even greater impact on feelings of loneliness than the solitude itself. This study—which placed solitude-seeking behaviors of adolescents and adults into SDS and NSDS categories—found that the NSDS subscale was positively correlated with mental health challenges such as social anxiety and depression. The adolescents and adults who engaged in SDS, however, faced no such negative outcomes, and often, their solitude-seeking behaviors were associated with higher levels of self-acceptance and personal growth (Thomas). The small shift from NSDS to SDS changed the solitary experience entirely. Solitude itself had no bearing on loneliness, but the ability of the individual to choose solitude—and the reasoning behind their choice—shifted the experience from negative, painful, and lonely to self-fulfilling, exciting, and identity-growing. When solitude is self-determined, individuals do not experience the same levels of loneliness or social disconnection as their avoidance-motivated counterparts, regardless of how much time either party spends alone.

As such, the problem of loneliness is not as much a problem of introverted individuals and solitude seekers but more a problem of autonomy. Loneliness affects introverts and extroverts alike. Both healthy and unhealthy solitude-seeking spans the spectrum of introvert-extrovert identification, but those who experience positive outcomes from solitude all share at least one trait: dispositional autonomy (Thomas, Nguyen, et al.). The ability to regulate experiences within the lens of one’s values and act according to those values is the most significant determinant in the subjective experience of loneliness.

For those who choose to approach solitude with personal conviction, the state of being alone can bring the necessary balance and insight. Solitude-seeking behaviors driven by fear, avoidance, or other external circumstances often result in the expected negative health outcomes of loneliness. Approaching sociality and solitude with autonomy is the key to understanding loneliness. Whether one actively engages with people for hours every day or runs to isolation whenever they get a free moment, each can experience the positive benefits of acting congruently with their own social needs and desires. The factor of choice splits social isolation (solitude) and emotional isolation (loneliness)—when one chooses how, when, and why to engage in solitude, they also choose how the experience of solitude will affect their mental and emotional health. Solitude can be beneficial, but only when approached with intention and autonomy.

Works Cited

Barstead, Matthew G., et al. “Shyness, Preference for Solitude, and Adolescent Internalizing: The Roles of Maternal, Paternal, and Best-Friend Support.” Journal of Research on Adolescence : The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, vol. 28, no. 2, June 2018, pp. 488–504. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1111/jora.1235.

Card, Kiffer G. and Shayna Skakoon-Sparling. “Are Social Support, Loneliness, and Social Connection Differentially Associated with Happiness Across Levels of Introversion-Extraversion?” Health Psychology Open, vol. 10, no. 1, 2023, doi:10.1177/20551029231184034.

‌Heu, L. C., et al. “Does Loneliness Thrive in Relational Freedom or Restriction? The Culture-Loneliness Framework.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, Mar. 2021, pp. 60–72. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1177/1089268020959033.

Kannan, Viji Diane, and Peter J. Veazie. “US Trends in Social Isolation, Social Engagement, and Companionship ⎯ Nationally and by Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Family Income, and Work Hours, 2003–2020.” SSM – Population Health, vol. 21, no. 21, Mar. 2023, p. 101331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101331.

Nguyen, Thuy-vy T., et al. “Who Enjoys Solitude? Autonomous Functioning (but Not Introversion) Predicts Self-Determined Motivation (but Not Preference) for Solitude.” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 5, 25 May 2022, p. e0267185, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267185.

Office of the Surgeon General. “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation.” US Department of Health & Human Services, www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf, 2023.

Ren, Dongning. Solitude Seeking: The Good, the Bad, and the Balance. Purdue University, 2016. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest One Academic, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/solitude-seeking-good-bad-balance/docview/1850448404/se-2.

Thomas, Virginia, and Margarita Azmitia. “Motivation Matters: Development and Validation of the Motivation for Solitude Scale – Short Form (MSS-SF).” Journal of Adolescence, vol. 70, Jan. 2019, pp. 33–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.004.