Abstract/Summary

Two literatures argue that time alone is harmful (i.e., isolation) and valuable (i.e., positive solitude). We explored whether people benefit from a balance between their daily solitude and social time, such that having ‘right’ quantities of both maximizes well-being. Participants (n = 178) completed a 21-day diary study, which quantified solitude time in hours through reconstructing daily events. This procedure minimized retrospective bias and tested natural variations across time. There was no evidence for a one-size-fits-all ‘optimal balance’ between solitude and social time. Linear effects suggested that people were lonelier and less satisfied on days in which they spent more hours in solitude. These detrimental relations were nullified or reduced when daily solitude was autonomous (choiceful) and did not accumulate across days; those who were generally alone more were not, on the whole, lonelier. On days in which people spent more time alone they felt less stress and greater autonomy satisfaction (volitional, authentic, and free from pressure). These benefits were cumulative; those who spent more time alone across the span of the study were less stressed and more autonomy satisfied overall. Solitude time risks lowering well-being on some metrics but may hold key advantages to other aspects of well-being.