2. occasionally has some problems with a lisp. Her parents were
hesitant about Brandy being pulled out of
class, but when she reported she was getting picked on at school
by some classmates, they agreed to the
speech therapy.
At home, she has a supportive family and siblings (younger and
older) with whom she gets along well.
Occasionally she will get into trouble for lying, but most often
feels pretty badly about it once she is caught.
Her father also has a master’s degree with a full-time job, and
she and her siblings attend an after-school
daycare program for a couple hours. She plays with the
neighborhood kids and her siblings; however
sometimes Brandy has communication struggles with others due
to her lisp. She loves sports, and just
finished playing soccer and is set to start t-ball within the next
week or two.
Case study 2:
Brandon is an African-American eight-year-old child in third
grade, who is in danger of having to repeat the
grade. He continues to struggle with being able to concentrate
in class, and says he is “bored” when
students have to just sit and read; sometimes he talks and walks
around the class and other times he draws
pictures and pays no attention at all. He frequently gets sent to
the principal’s office for this behavior, but
does not seem to mind because the principal lets him play and
gives him snacks (as he always complains
about being hungry). Often the principal compliments him on
his artwork.
When his parents were told about his behavior, they were
4. he keeps relating what he reads to his own life situation and
problems. He tends to be alone most of the
time, although he is very curious about people and watches
others interact. Jay has a social immaturity
about him that prevents him from making many friends. If he
complains about not getting along with others,
his father reminds him he is not in school to socialize but to
succeed in life.
He feels like he does not fit in anywhere at the school because
his few acquaintances are not in the
accelerated honors program. This adds to the stress at home
because he has no outlets from the constant
pressure and criticism from his father. He is often reminded that
if his mother were still alive, she’d be a
resource and a buffer from his father.
Recently, he had to volunteer at a local community center as
part of a course assignment, and chose to
work with the local Boys and Girls Club. He enjoyed this so
much that he has decided to continue
volunteering even when the class ends.
Case study 4:
Soo-Kyung (or “Sue”) is a sixteen-year-old Korean student,
with a history of self-harm, drug abuse, and
theft. She has to go to counseling at the school as a condition of
her probation, and to have any chance of
having her record expunged when she is an adult.
Sue is usually shabbily dressed, has bad body odor, is hostile
and refuses to open up or discuss anything
at length with her counselor. She has been seen around school
with one kid and was seen talking to that
5. kid in the hall before she came into your office. You have found
some information in her school file that
apprises you of some pertinent details of her past experiences:
You learn that she had an alcoholic mother,
who was in and out of a series of relationships when Sue was a
child, resulting in frequent moves and a
string of different schools. A period of sexual abuse by one of
her mother’s boyfriends at the age of 14 led
Sue to attempt suicide. Subsequently, she has frequently
inflicted injuries on herself.
She finally moved out of her mother’s house and is living with
an aunt, who although she does not have a
drug problem, works three jobs to provide for Sue and her five
nieces and nephews, and is rarely home.
Sue loves helping out with the kids and likes her aunt. Her aunt
comes to the school occasionally for
parent-teacher conferences, and will ask for suggestions or help,
stating that she is trying to help Sue, but
has limited resources in terms of time and money.
Some ideas were used from Psychology Applied Learning
Scenarios (PALS): A practical introduction to
problem-based learning using vignettes for psychology lecturers
by Lin Norton funded by LTSN
Psychology. “All the materials provided in this pack are free to
use in their original format or can be
adapted, giving acknowledgment to LTSN Psychology.”
When One Is Company and Two Is a Crowd: Why
Some Children Prefer Solitude
6. Robert J. Coplan, Laura L. Ooi, and Gabriella Nocita
Carleton University
ABSTRACT—In this article, we examine research on con-
ceptualizing and assessing individual differences in chil-
dren’s preference for solitude. Social withdrawal is
typically defined as the process whereby a child removes
himself or herself from opportunities for social interaction
with peers. Most research has focused on shy children
(whose retreat into solitude is driven by social fear or anx-
iety), but some children may instead prefer solitary activi-
ties. We aim to clarify the distinction between
unsociability (i.e., a nonfearful affinity for solitude) and
social avoidance (i.e., a preference for solitude driven by
actively avoiding social interaction). We also provide sug-
gestions for further research, drawing on related perspec-
tives from personality and clinical psychology.
KEYWORDS—solitude; social withdrawal; unsociability;
avoidance
The experience of solitude is ubiquitous across life and
research-
ers have examined the causes, consequences, and costs/benefits
of spending time alone (1). One area of focus for developmental
psychologists has been social withdrawal, the process whereby
some children spend more time in solitude than their age mates
because they tend to remove themselves from opportunities to
interact with peers (in contrast with being actively excluded by
peers; 2). Given that the peer group is an important and unique
context for children’s social, emotional, cognitive, and moral
development, children who spend more time alone may lack
interactions with peers that are appropriate for their age (2).
However, social withdrawal itself is a multidimensional con-
7. struct, reflecting different underlying motivational and
emotional
substrates (3). In short, children have different reasons for
choos-
ing solitude—and these in turn apparently yield different
implica-
tions for children’s well-being. The most widely used
theoretical
model (4) identifies three subtypes of social withdrawal, distin-
guished by distinct combinations of children’s social approach
and social avoidance motivations: (a) shyness (high approach,
high
avoidance); (b) unsociability (low approach, low avoidance);
and
(c) social avoidance (low approach, high avoidance).
Most research has focused on shyness, which is characterized
by an internal social approach-avoidance conflict (5). Thus,
although shy children may want to play with others, they with-
draw socially because of heightened fear of social novelty and
social-evaluative concerns. Starting in early childhood, extre-
mely shy children are at increased risk for concurrent and later
adjustment difficulties (2).
In contrast, we know considerably less about children who may
prefer to play alone (most empirical studies on this phenomenon
have been published in the last 5 years). In this article, we
exam-
ine in detail the construct of preference for solitude in
childhood.
In particular, we aim to distinguish between unsociability (a
non-
fearful preference for solitary activities) and social avoidance (a
preference for solitude driven by the direct circumvention of
social interaction). We review research pertaining to the
9. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
conceptually with the long-studied adult personality trait of
introversion (6; see 7, for a recent review). Unsociable children
are described as content to play alone, and as neither desiring
nor fearing peer interaction. Moreover, although they may not
often choose to initiate social exchanges, unsociable children
are also considered capable of engaging in competent social
actions when called upon and would not be expected to actively
reject attractive social bids (8). Accordingly, unsociability is
thought to represent a comparatively benign subtype of social
withdrawal, particularly in early childhood when solitary play
among peers is age normative (9). Consistent with this notion,
in
empirical studies, unsociability has not generally been associ-
ated with socioemotional difficulties in young children (e.g., 5).
Researchers have also speculated that unsociability becomes
increasingly maladaptive among older children, when age-
driven
norms and demands for social interaction might render all forms
of social withdrawal progressively deviant (8). However,
empiri-
cal studies of children at different developmental stages have
not supported this assertion. For example, in one study (10),
unsociable 6- to 8-year-olds did not differ from shy or nonwith-
drawn children in their loneliness, liking of school, or
internaliz-
ing problems. However, unsociable boys (but not girls) were
rated by parents and teachers as having more peer problems
than nonwithdrawn boys. Similarly, in another study (11),
although unsociable 10- and 11-year-olds were excluded more
often by peers than their nonwithdrawn counterparts, they were
10. just as likely to say they had a mutual best friend and their
friendships were just as stable over a school year.
Unsociable 9- to 12-year-olds did not differ significantly from
a nonwithdrawn comparison group in terms of measures of
inter-
nalizing problems such as social anxiety, negative affect, and
symptoms of depression (12). Consistent with these findings,
unsociability among young adolescents (13–14 years) in India
was not significantly associated with social difficulties (i.e.,
exclusion, rejection, victimization) or loneliness after
controlling
for other subtypes of social withdrawal (13). Finally, in another
study, unsociable young adults did not differ significantly from
comparison nonwithdrawn young adults in self-esteem, fear of
negative evaluation, social comparisons, emotional dysregula-
tion, self-harm, and suicidal ideation (14).
In all of these studies of unsociability, a nonfearful preference
for solitude is inferred based on a low social approach motiva-
tion. From a somewhat different perspective, researchers have
also highlighted the increasingly adaptive function of an
affinity
for aloneness1 (i.e., comfort with being alone) in adolescence
(e.g., 15, 16). Affinity for aloneness was associated negatively
with both sociability and extraversion, was related positively to
the desire to spend time alone for self-reflection and concentra-
tion, and was unrelated to indices of internalizing problems.
In this regard, researchers have argued that during adoles-
cence and early adulthood, solitude emerges as a constructive
domain of expertise, with time spent alone becoming critical for
developmental tasks such as individuation and identity forma-
tion (15). In support of this notion, in a larger cross-sectional
study of youth from early adolescence to early adulthood,
youth’s
11. mean-level positive attitudes toward aloneness increased with
age (17).
Another study (18) examined age differences in the implica-
tions of youth’s affinity for aloneness: Whereas young adoles-
cents identified as high in affinity for aloneness reported
lower self-esteem than their peers, older adolescents who pre-
ferred solitude did not differ from the comparison group. Simi-
larly, in another study (19), preference for solitude was
associated with internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depres-
sion, emotion dysregulation, low self-esteem) in eighth graders
(13–14 years) but not in twelfth graders (17–18 years). How-
ever, as acknowledged by the authors of this study, the self-
reported measure of “preference for solitude” developed for
the study contained items conceptually related to social avoid-
ance (e.g., “I spend time alone because I want to be alone
more than I want to be with other kids”), a construct we will
discuss in greater detail.
Thus, unsociability, in and of itself, does not appear to grow
increasingly problematic with age. Why? Unsociable children
may have just enough social interactions with peers to curtail
many of the negative concomitants of social isolation (13).
Alter-
natively, although unsociable children may be prone to a some-
what heightened degree of peer exclusion, they do not appear to
be particularly bothered by these experiences (12). Indeed, per-
haps the strongest argument for leaving unsociable children
“alone” is that although unsociable children spend more time
by themselves than their nonwithdrawn counterparts, they do
not report being more lonely.
These findings notwithstanding, the importance of peer inter-
action for children’s development cannot be discounted, and
continued deviation from age-related social norms may come at
a cost for children (2). Although playing alone among peers is
12. relatively common in early childhood (5), in one observational
study, 9- to 12-year-olds engaged in interactions with a peer or
peers more than 90% of the time during recess and lunch (20).
Moreover, the small group of children in this study who
engaged
most frequently in solitary activities also experienced the most
socioemotional difficulties.
Along with developmental effects, researchers may want to
consider the role of gender. For example, shyness appears to
have more negative social implications for boys than for girls
(although these findings vary by age and type of assessment),
perhaps because it violates gender norms related to male social
assertion and dominance (see 21, for a review). A similar effect
has been seen for unsociability, with stronger links between
unsociability and difficulties with peers reported for boys than
for girls (10, 22).
1Although we hesitate to introduce another term into an
already-overcrowded
and complex nomenclature, affinity for aloneness appears to
represent clearly and
succinctly the underlying conceptualization of this construct.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015,
Pages 133–137
134 Robert J. Coplan, Laura L. Ooi, and Gabriella Nocita
Researchers should also consider the role of culture. For
example, whereas Western countries may value the desire to
play alone as an autonomous expression of personal choice,
many non-Western cultures emphasize interdependence and
social affiliation. In a collectivistic society like China, unsocia-
13. bility may conflict with cultural norms regarding group orienta-
tion and be viewed as selfish and deviant (23). In recent studies
in Mainland China (24, 25), unsociability was related to socio-
emotional and school difficulties among school-aged children.
Finally, the ways unsociability is operationalized and
assessed vary considerably. Subtle differences in the wording of
items across studies may contribute to differential results. For
example, measures of unsociability in different studies include
items that describe a tolerance for solitude (e.g., “I don’t really
mind spending time alone”), an overt preference for solitude
(e.g., “I want to be alone”), and the lack of social approach
motivations (e.g., “I don’t have a strong need to be with other
kids”; 5, 13, 14, 16). The source of these assessments is also
important: Since unsociability reflects internal states (e.g.,
moti-
vations), parents’ reports may be more appropriate for younger
children and self-reports may be more effective for older chil-
dren. Observations of solitary-passive behaviors (i.e., playing
quietly alone) apparently are insufficient for discriminating
unsociability from other subtypes of social withdrawal (5, 12).
Moreover, researchers disagree on how to measure unsociability
across sources of assessment (22). Improvements in assessment
may come with a more explicit distinction between unsociability
and other reasons children prefer to be alone (i.e., social avoid-
ance).
SOCIAL AVOIDANCE IN CHILDHOOD: “I DON’T WANT
TO PLAY WITH YOU. . .”
The term socially avoidant is used to describe socially with-
drawn children with low social approach and high social avoid-
ance motivations (4). Similar to their unsociable counterparts,
avoidant children are also less prone to initiate interactions with
peers. However, whereas unsociable children appear to be will-
ing and capable of engaging in peer exchanges as warranted
14. (e.g., in response to an attractive social invitation), avoidant
children actively seek to circumvent social interaction (e.g.,
overtly turning down social requests). Although researchers
have
speculated for almost 25 years that avoidant children might be
at the highest risk for the most pervasive socioemotional
difficul-
ties (compared to unsociable and shy children; 4), little was
known about this form of social withdrawal until recently.
The few empirical studies that have assessed social avoidance
suggest that it is a particularly maladaptive form of social with-
drawal. For example, in one study, socially avoidant elementary
school-aged children reported more internalizing problems than
groups of shy, unsociable, and nonwithdrawn children (12).
Sim-
ilarly, in another study, social avoidance in adolescence
uniquely predicted peer exclusion and loneliness, after control-
ling for shyness and unsociability (13). Finally, in another
study,
socially avoidant young adults reported more internalizing prob-
lems and relationship difficulties than their unsociable and non-
withdrawn counterparts, but did not differ significantly from
shy
young adults (14).
These findings leave a basic question unanswered: How does
social avoidance develop? Social avoidance may simply repre-
sent an extreme form of shyness (i.e., social anxiety), whereby
consistent and frequent experiences of fear and anxiety during
social situations eventually extinguish some shy children’s
desire to approach others (26). It has also been suggested that
social avoidance could be an early manifestation of the develop-
ment of depression in childhood (3). Supporting both of these
possibilities, in one study, avoidant children reported greater
15. social anxiety and symptoms of depression than shy and unso-
ciable children (12).
Is social avoidance in childhood a marker of later-developing,
more serious clinical disorders? Extreme shyness in childhood
predicts the development of social anxiety disorder, a debilitat-
ing condition characterized by excessive or persistent fear of
social situations involving unfamiliar others or social
evaluation
(27). Moreover, socially anxious individuals use behavioral
avoidance to cope with distressing social situations (28).
Extreme shyness may also serve as an antecedent of avoidant
personality disorder, a pervasive pattern of social inhibition,
feel-
ings of social inadequacy, and unrealistic standards for personal
behavior (29). This disorder often leads to hypersensitivity
toward negative evaluations from others and a tendency to avoid
interpersonal contact. Individuals with social anxiety and avoi-
dant personality disorder desire social acceptance but avoid
interactions to elude potential rejection or humiliation. Thus,
the desire to avoid negative social outcomes appears to trump
the need to interact with others (30).
Drawing on the clinical literature, we postulate that social
avoidance in childhood could represent an early manifestation
of social anhedonia, the reduced capacity to derive pleasure
from social interactions (31). This indifference toward social
interaction is also characteristic of some personality disorders
(e.g., schizoid personality disorder; 32). Although social
anhedo-
nia has been studied primarily among adults diagnosed with
depression and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, it may also be
an identifiable personality trait in individuals without psychiat-
ric diagnoses (33). For example, elevated social anhedonia
among undergraduate students has been associated with
increased time alone, greater preference for solitude, and
16. greater
disengagement during social contact (34). The empirical link
between social avoidance and social anhedonia in childhood
remains unexplored.
Negative social experiences may also play a role in the devel-
opment of social avoidance. Shy (anxious-solitary) children who
experience heightened peer exclusion may be prone to develop-
ing later depression (e.g., 35). Relatedly, negative peer experi-
ences appear to exacerbate the association between shyness and
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015,
Pages 133–137
Preference for Solitude 135
young children’s preference for solitary activities (36). In other
words, poor peer relations may attenuate shy children’s social
approach motivations, leading to social avoidance.
Finally, researchers have conceptualized and measured
social avoidance differently across the few empirical studies.
In some, avoidant children were identified based on combina-
tions of aspects of approach and avoidance (e.g., 12, 37). This
method could be strengthened by adapting more direct mea-
sures of social approach and avoidance from studies of adult
personality (e.g., 38). In other studies, specific items were
added to measures of shyness and unsociability to measure
social avoidance directly (e.g., 13). Assessing avoidance in
this manner could be further strengthened by adapting mea-
sures of relevant constructs from the clinical literature (e.g.,
social anhedonia).
More effective measurement should also help clarify our
17. understanding of the etiology of social avoidance in childhood.
If anything, preliminary results raise the possibility of
equifinali-
ty—with differential developmental pathways leading uniquely
to later social avoidance. We also need to understand the mean-
ing and implications of social avoidance in non-Western cul-
tures. The first study of social avoidance in China suggests
similar negative implications for young children in this culture
(39). However, social avoidance may also have culturally
specific manifestations, such as the phenomenon of hikikomori,
an extreme form of self-imposed social isolation among
Japanese
youth (40).
CONCLUSIONS
Although research on children’s preference for solitude has
advanced, much remains to be done. Aside from measurement
issues, the field needs longitudinal studies to elucidate the etio-
logical pathways more effectively and to explore directly the
implications of solitude at different developmental stages.
Finally, researchers are studying solitude within the context
of an expanding and increasingly connected global social com-
munity (1). The meaning and implications of solitary endeavors
vary considerably across cultural contexts. However, the contin-
ued emergence of technologies intended to connect us more eas-
ily and quickly to social and informational online networks
raises questions about the very nature of what it now means to
be alone.
REFERENCES
1. Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2014). The handbook of
solitude:
Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social
18. withdrawal, and
being alone. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. (2009). Social
withdrawal
in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171.
3. Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A “multitude” of
solitude: A clo-
ser look at social withdrawal and nonsocial play in early
childhood.
Child Development Perspectives, 1, 26–32.
4. Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness,
unso-
ciability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250–
259.
5. Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004).
Do you
“want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and
social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental
Psychology, 40,
244–258.
6. Eysenck, H. J. (1956). The questionnaire measurement of
neuroti-
cism and extraversion. Revista de Psicologia, 50, 113–140.
7. Zelenski, J. M., Sobocko, K., & Whelan, D. C. (2014).
Introversion,
solitude, and subjective well-being. In R. J. Coplan & J. C.
Bowker
(Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on
social
isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 184–201).
19. New
York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
8. Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Social withdrawal,
inhibi-
tion, and shyness in childhood: Conceptual and definitional
issues.
In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal,
inhibi-
tion, and shyness in childhood (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
9. Rubin, K. H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers:
Necessarily
evil? Child Development, 53, 651–657.
10. Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Unsociability in middle
child-
hood: Conceptualization, assessment, and associations with
socio-
emotional functioning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 105–130.
11. Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eggum, N. D., Kochel,
K. P.,
& McConnell, E. M. (2011). Characterizing and comparing the
friendships of anxious-solitary and unsociable preadolescents.
Child
Development, 82, 1434–1453.
12. Coplan, R. J., Rose-Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A.,
Kings-
bury, M., & Bullock, A. (2013). Alone is a crowd: Social
motiva-
tions, social withdrawal, and socio-emotional functioning in
later
childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 861–875.
20. 13. Bowker, J. C., & Raja, R. (2011). Social withdrawal
subtypes during
early adolescence in India. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology,
39, 201–212.
14. Nelson, L. J. (2013). Going it alone: Comparing subtypes of
with-
drawal on indices of adjustment and maladjustment in emerging
adulthood. Social Development, 22, 522–538.
15. Goossens, L. (2014). Affinity for aloneness and preference
for soli-
tude in childhood: Linking two research traditions. In R. J.
Coplan
& J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological
per-
spectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone
(pp.
150–166). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
16. Teppers, E., Klimstra, T., Van Damme, C., Luyckx, K.,
Vanhalst, J.,
& Goossens, L. (2013). Personality traits, loneliness, and
attitudes
to being alone in adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal
Rela-
tionships, 30, 1045–1063.
17. Maes, M., Klimstra, T., Van den Noortgate, W., &
Goossens, L.
(2015). Factor structure and measurement invariance of a
multidi-
mensional loneliness scale: Comparisons across gender and age.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1829–1837.
21. 18. Teppers, E., Luyckx, K., Vanhalst, J., Klimstra, T., &
Goossens,
L. (2014). Attitudes towards aloneness during adolescence: A
per-
son-centered approach. Infant and Child Development, 23, 239–
248.
19. Wang, J. M., Rubin, K. H., Laursen, B., Booth-LaForce, C.,
&
Rose-Krasnor, L. (2013). Preference-for-solitude and
adjustment
difficulties in early and late adolescence. Journal of Clinical
Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 42, 834–842.
20. Coplan, R. J., Ooi, L. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2014).
Naturalistic
observations of schoolyard social participation: Marker
variables for
socio-emotional functioning in early adolescence. Journal of
Early
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015,
Pages 133–137
136 Robert J. Coplan, Laura L. Ooi, and Gabriella Nocita
Adolescence. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/
0272431614523134
21. Doey, L., Coplan, R. J., & Kingsbury, M. (2014). Bashful
boys and
coy girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness.
22. Sex
Roles, 70, 255–266.
22. Spangler, T., & Gazelle, H. (2009). Anxious solitude,
unsociability,
and peer exclusion in middle childhood: A multitrait-
multimethod
matrix. Social Development, 18, 833–856.
23. Chen, X. (2010). Shyness-inhibition in childhood and
adolescence:
A cross-cultural perspective. In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan
(Eds.),
The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 213–
235).
New York, NY: Guilford.
24. Liu, J., Chen, X., Coplan, R. J., Ding, X., Zarbatany, L., &
Ellis, W.
(2015). Shyness and unsociability and their relations with
adjust-
ment in Chinese and Canadian children. Journal of Cross-
Cultural
Psychology, 46, 371–386.
25. Liu, J., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., Li, D., Ding, X., & Zhou,
Y. (2014).
Unsociability and shyness in Chinese children: Concurrent and
pre-
dictive relations with indices of adjustment. Social
Development, 23,
119–136.
26. Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1999). Conceptual,
biological,
and behavioral distinctions among different categories of shy
23. children. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear,
shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and
clinical outcomes (pp. 47–66). New York, NY: Oxford
University
Press.
27. Chronis-Tuscano, A., Degnan, K., Pine, D. S., Perez-Edgar,
K., Henderson, H. A., Diaz, Y., . . . Fox, N. A. (2009). Sta-
ble early maternal report of behavioral inhibition predicts
lifetime social anxiety disorder in adolescence. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
48, 928–935.
28. Essau, C. A., Conradt, J., & Petermann, F. (1999).
Frequency and
comorbidity of social phobia and social fears in adolescents.
Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 37, 831–843.
29. Eggum, N. D., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C.,
Edwards,
A., Kupfer, A. S., & Reiser, M. (2009). Predictors of
withdrawal:
Possible precursors of avoidant personality disorder.
Development
and Psychopathology, 21, 815–838.
30. Hofmann, S. G. (2007). Cognitive factors that maintain
social anxi-
ety disorder: A comprehensive model and its treatment
implications.
Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 36, 193–209.
31. Blanchard, J. J., Gangestad, S. W., Brown, S. A., & Horan,
W. P.
(2000). Hedonic capacity and schizotypy revisited: A taxometric
24. analysis of social anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
109,
87–95.
32. Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (2007). Personality diagnosis with
the
Shedler-Westen assessment procedure (SWAP): Integrating
clinical
and statistical measurement and prediction. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 116, 810–822.
33. Troisi, A., Alcini, S., Coviello, M., Croce Nanni, R., &
Siacusano,
A. (2010). Adult attachment style and social anhedonia in
healthy
volunteers. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 640–
643.
34. Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T.
R.
(2007). When the need to belong goes wrong. Psychological
Science,
18, 778–782.
35. Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and
peer
exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories
in
childhood. Child Development, 74, 257–278.
36. Coplan, R. J., Ooi, L. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Nocita, G.
(2014). “I
want to play alone”: Assessment and correlates of self-reported
pref-
erence for solitary play in young children. Infant and Child
Develop-
25. ment, 23, 229–238.
37. Coplan, R. J., Wilson, J., Frohlick, S. L., & Zelenski, J.
(2006). A
person-oriented analysis of behavioral inhibition and behavioral
activation in childhood. Personality and Individual Differences,
41,
917–927.
38. Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2015). The indirect nature of
social
motives: The relation of social approach and avoidance motives
with
likeability via agreeableness. Journal of Personality, 83, 97–
105.
39. Ding, X., Coplan, R. J., Sang, B., Liu, J., Pan, T., & Cheng,
C.
(2015). Young Chinese children’s beliefs about the implications
of
subtypes of social withdrawal: A first look at social avoidance.
Brit-
ish Journal of Developmental Psychology. Advance online
publica-
tion. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12081
40. Furlong, A. (2008). The Japanese hikikomori phenomenon:
Acute
social withdrawal among young people. Sociological Review,
56,
309–325.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015,
Pages 133–137
Preference for Solitude 137
