Background Solitude is often associated with loneliness and is therefore commonly viewed as a negative state, despite studies showing its potential benefits. Drawing on existential and self-determination theory perspectives, we propose a Prism Model in which attitudes toward solitude -- Solitude Intolerance and Solitude Appreciation -- measured using the Differential Test of Aloneness moderate the associations of General Loneliness with well-being and affect following solitude. Methods Two cross-sectional online studies in samples of U.S. adults (N = 408 and N = 266, of whom 169 reported solitude in the preceding 24 h and were included in the hypothesis tests) examined whether attitudes toward solitude moderated the associations of General Loneliness with well-being and affect, controlling for dispositional autonomy and autonomous and controlled motivation for solitude. Results In Study 1, Solitude Intolerance moderated the negative association between General Loneliness and well-being, whereas Solitude Appreciation did not. In Study 2, Solitude Intolerance moderated the associations of General Loneliness with well-being, high-arousal positive affect, and low-arousal positive affect, but not with negative affect. Solitude Appreciation moderated only the loneliness–well-being association. Significant interactions accounted for modest increments in explained variance. Conclusions Contrary to prediction, the negative association between General Loneliness and well-being was weaker at higher levels of Solitude Intolerance. This finding suggests underlying processes that may buffer people from the negative impact of loneliness, though a buffering effect must be explicitly tested using appropriate methodologies. Although not the focus, motivation for solitude accounted for variance in all outcomes. Future longitudinal and experimental research should examine the processes underlying these findings and explore the utility of positive solitude interventions targeting attitudes and motivation in helping to cope with loneliness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lynch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: