Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Nguyen, T., Weinstein, N., & Deci, E. (2022). Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.31629 Social Psychology Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude 1 2 3 Thuy-vy Nguyen , Netta Weinstein , Edward Deci 1 2 3 Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA Keywords: just think, self-regulation, self-determination theory, autonomy, solitude https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.31629 Collabra: Psychology Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2022 Sitting alone with one’s thoughts could foster a sense of rest and relaxation, yet many find this activity difficult. In two preregistered experiments (Study 1: n = 266, Study 2: n = 369), we focused on autonomy-supportive and controlling framings of solitude as drivers of motivation for solitude, positive experiences such as enjoyment and relaxation, negative experiences such as frustration and boredom, and negative thoughts like worries and rumination. In Study 1, we found support for one hypothesis that autonomy-supportive instructions to sit alone with thoughts led to greater autonomous motivation for solitude compared to controlling instructions that pressured participants to sit alone. However, the effect of instructions on autonomous motivation was trivial, with a smaller effect observed in Study 2. More importantly, we did not find evidence that our autonomy-supportive instructions meaningfully influenced self-reported measures of participants’ experiences with sitting alone with thoughts, nor both self-reported and behavioral measures intention to be in solitude again. Examination of null effects suggested that most differences between autonomy-supportive and controlling-instruction conditions were likely too small to be practically meaningful. However, some null findings in relation to excitement, relaxation, or frustration during sitting alone with thoughts were equivocal and required larger sample sizes to determine whether there was indeed an absence of effect. Consistent with findings reported by Nguyen et al. (2018), participants displayed drops in high-arousal types of affect and increases in low-arousal types of affect. Future research is needed to explore other factors that influence motivation for solitude and lead people to benefit from the regulatory effects of time spent alone. Solitude benefits emotion regulation (Nguyen et al., Wittmann, 2020), but for the most part people generally 2018), and allows opportunities for people to relax and to be find sitting with one’s thought less enjoyable than having in touch with themselves (Pfeifer et al., 2019). A survey of something to do when they are alone (Wilson et al., 2014). more than 18,000 people across 134 countries showed that This aversiveness of sitting alone with one’s thoughts has majority of adults saw time alone as an opportunity for rest, been demonstrated in a cross-national sample (Buttrick et particularly when such time was spent on low-key activities al., 2018). It is perhaps rather surprising that, as a species like reading, being in nature, listening to music, or doing which prides itself on reasoning abilities, humans fear be- nothing in particular (Hammond, 2016). An experimental ing alone with our wandering thoughts and require a certain study also showed that daily embracing of solitude reduced level of assistance to maintain focus (Alahmadi et al., 2017; the average stress level of the week (Nguyen et al., 2018). Westgate et al., 2017). In a diary study of mothers, those who pursued more alone The ability to tolerate and even flourish during time time were less likely to report stress and transmit it to their spent alone with oneself might differ across individuals de- children (Larson & Gillman, 1999). pending on how they approach this experience. For exam- Despite these benefits of solitude to daily emotion or ple, seeing solitude as beneficial rather than lonely help stress regulation, spending time alone has its challenge, people gain more regulatory benefits from sitting alone since the absence of social stimuli often brings people more with their thoughts (Rodriguez et al., 2020). This finding in tune with their thoughts and inner feelings. Sometimes is consistent with the broader literature that showed time self-awareness in solitude can be pleasant (Pfeifer & spent alone is more tolerable for those who embrace soli- a firstname.lastname@example.org Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude tude as a choice rather than an unwanted experience (Lay thoughts) in the lab. Second, we tested how autonomy-sup- et al., 2020). From both clinical and developmental perspec- portive versus controlling instructions influenced partici- tives, the capacity to be alone (Winnicott, 1958) – an abil- pants’ experiences with solitude in the lab, and their inten- ity to maintain psychological balance during time spent re- tion to persist in it when given a second, later opportunity flecting on one’s inner experiences – has been linked to to be alone with their thoughts. Third, we tested whether psychological maturity (Hämäläinen, 1999). Consistently, these two instructions would have different effects on fu- empirical data has linked the ability to derive positive ex- ture intention to engage with solitude outside of the lab and periences from solitude to well-being (Thomas & Azmitia, the following day. 2019) and self-esteem (Nguyen et al., 2019). In Study 1, autonomy-supportive versus controlling in- In recent years, conceptual approaches that explore who structions were tested against a neutral instruction. Inclu- derive value from solitude, and when, have incorporated a sion of a neutral condition allows us to evaluate the effects self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) perspective. of the two treatments, autonomy-supportive instructions Informed by self-determination theory, researchers assert and controlling instructions, with a standard procedure that that self-determined or autonomous motivation for soli- does not use any motivational framings. We tested the fol- tude – defined as being motivated to be alone for its ben- lowing hypotheses: efits and enjoyment – is an important predictor of solitary Autonomous motivation for solitude. Based on pre- enjoyment (Nguyen et al., 2018; Thomas & Azmitia, 2019). vious findings (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005; Weinstein et al., Yet, the majority of studies demonstrating the role of cho- 2017), we predicted that those in the autonomy-supportive sen solitude and autonomous motivation for solitude in fa- instruction condition would display the highest level of relative cilitating its positive outcomes are correlational (i.e., Lay autonomous motivation for solitude, while those in the neutral et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2018, 2019; Thomas & Azmitia, condition would display a middle level, and those in the con- 2019), and cannot speak to the causal effects on au- trolling-instruction condition would display the lowest level tonomous motivation or experiences in solitude. Given how (Hypothesis 1). little enthusiasm we seem to have for sitting alone with our Solitude experience and future intention. Building thoughts, despite its regulatory benefits, can we reframe on the literature linking autonomous motivation for soli- people’s perception of this activity in ways that allow us to tude with positive outcomes such as emotional well-being see greater value in, and in turns benefit more from, it? (Chua & Koestner, 2008) and self-esteem (Nguyen et al., 2018), we predicted that autonomy-supportive instructions The Present Research would lead to greater positive solitary experiences (i.e., en- joyment, relaxation, excitement, likelihood to be in solitude The aim of the present research was to examine whether again, desire to be in solitude again) and lower negative soli- reactions to the challenge of sitting alone with one’s tary experiences (i.e., frustration, boredom, rumination, wor- thoughts could be influenced by practices that led people ries, paranoia) during solitude compared to the neutral and to be more autonomously motivated to experience solitude. controlling-instruction conditions. We anticipated that the Informed by self-determination theory, we aimed to in- controlling-instruction condition would show the lowest levels crease autonomous motivation for solitude through the use of positive experiences and highest levels of negative experi- of autonomy-supportive and controlling instructions. An ences (Hypothesis 2). autonomy-supportive instruction involves language that Free-choice behavior. We investigated whether auton- supports choice (e.g., “it is up to you”), taking an interest in omy-supportive versus controlling instructions would influ- the participant’s perspective (e.g., “I understand you might ence the extent to which participants engaged in an alter- find this experience challenging”), and providing meaning- native activity rather than sitting with their thoughts. For ful rationales for any rules or guidelines (e.g., “it is impor- this outcome, we used a similar procedure to that used in tant that…”). This way of providing instructions for an ac- Wilson et al.'s (2014) Study 10 by instructing participants to tivity has increased students’ autonomous motivation for be alone with their thoughts, but also allowing them the op- learning (Reeve & Jang, 2006), even when the learning task portunity to experience an alternative, unattractive activ- is uninteresting (Reeve et al., 2002). In contrast, a con- ity during a “free-choice period” that followed the solitude trolling instruction uses pressuring language such as “we period. We predicted that those who received autonomy-sup- expect you”, “you must”, or “you should” to drive action portive instructions would be less likely to choose the unattrac- (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005; Weinstein et al., 2017). Such tive alternative than spending time alone with their thoughts, language triggers perceived social pressure (Vansteenkiste compared to the neutral and controlling-instruction condi- et al., 2014), and undermines receivers’ self-expression tions, whereas those who received controlling instructions (Barber, 1996; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). would be most likely to select the unattractive alternative (Hy- Using these motivational framings, we compared the ef- pothesis 3). fects of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instruc- End-of-day well-being. We examined whether our ma- tions on several outcomes. The first outcome was partici- nipulation would have prolonged effects outside of the lab- pants’ autonomous motivation for solitude, operationalized oratory setting. We predicted that compared to the control- in terms of individuals’ reports they were motivated to en- ling and neutral conditions, the autonomy-supportive gage with solitude for its benefits and positive effects rather instruction condition would display lower stress and loneli- than due to external influences or obligations. To measure ness, and greater relatedness to others, at the end of the day of autonomous motivation, we assessed participants’ self-re- the lab session (Hypothesis 4). ported motivation for solitude (i.e., sitting alone with their Collabra: Psychology 2 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude ticipants, 18 Black participants, 22 Hispanic or Latino par- Exploratory Questions ticipants, 15 identified as mixed races or other races, and 16 Although we did not specify these hypotheses in the pre- did not report ethnicity. registration, we investigated whether autonomy-supportive and controlling instructions would have different effects Study Manipulation on mood from before to after participants sat alone with Participants were randomized to listen to one of the their thoughts. Previous research has shown that sitting three instructions that had been pre-recorded by the same quietly in solitude (Nguyen et al., 2018; Pfeifer et al., 2019) female experimenter. Condition assignment was fully ran- leads to significant drops in both high-arousal positive (e.g., dom using the Randomizer algorithm on Qualtrics. For the excited) and high arousal negative (e.g., anxious) affect, controlling instructions, we used explicitly demanding lan- whereas low-arousal affects–both positive (e.g., calm) and guage such as “you must” or “you should”, and stressed negative (e.g., sad)–increase. Referred to as the deactiva- that the experimenter “expects” the participant to sit alone tion effect, time spent in solitude dampens arousal levels without engaging in any other activities. For the autonomy- and gives rise to low-arousal states such as relaxation, if supportive instruction, we used wording such as “I invite positive, and loneliness, if negative. In this study, we ex- you to” and “you can”, and we emphasized that different plored whether receiving different motivational framings people might have different reactions to this activity so that would determine whether participants gained the positive, participants could feel free to explore their feelings with calming effect of solitude or suffered from its lonely conse- a sense of choice. Finally, participants in the neutral con- quence. We predicted that autonomy-supportive instructions dition were instructed to undertake the same activity, but would lead to increases in low-arousal positive affect, whereas the instructions simply used the word “please” in delivering controlling instructions would lead to increased low-arousal the instructions without any of the motivational language negative affect. described above. These instructions have been shown to change perceptions of autonomy support in previous stud- Study 1 ies (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005; Weinstein et al., 2017). In Method Appendix A, we included the protocol that was used to train research assistants, including the actual wording of all the Recruitment Method instructions delivered to the participants. Participants were recruited from the participant pool of a Procedure psychology department at a private university in the United States. Study 1 data collection was completed between Feb- An advertisement of our study, named “Solitude Study”, ruary, 2017 and May, 2017. Per the preregistered plan, we was posted on the university’s research and participant planned to recruit 246 participants to detect a small effect management website (SONA). This advert informed par- size of f = .20 (equivalent to η = .039) at 80% power for ticipants that the purpose of the study was to understand an F-test with three conditions using one-way ANOVA. In how solitude affected experiences. In the consent form, it the first week of data collection, we learned that the audio was explained that participants would listen to different recording of the controlling instruction was too quiet. We instructions and complete several activities during the lab created a new audio file to correct this issue. Participants in session. The research assistant was not present in the room the controlling-instruction condition recruited before this when participants engaged in each activity described below. error was corrected were excluded; this exclusion criterion Manipulation phase. After consenting, participants was described in our preregistration plan, as the pre-reg- completed a short questionnaire measuring their current istration was written after data collection (but before data affect. To ensure that participants would not engage in any analysis). activity while spending time alone in the lab, all belongings, Time slots were posted weekly based on research assis- including backpacks, digital devices such as computers, tants’ availability. By the last week of the Spring semes- phones, or smartwatches, were left outside of the room. ter of 2017, 246 participants had signed up for the posted Following this, participants listened to an audio recording time slots. However, we continued to recruit for another of either autonomy-supportive, controlling, or neutral in- week in case of no-shows or cancellations. This approach structions to spend time alone in the room without any ac- allowed us to ensure we would achieve our target sample tivity available to them. Audio recordings were delivered on size within the timeframe in which the participant pool was the lab iPad when the research assistant was not present in open. But it resulted in a larger sample size than was pre- the room, so that the research assistant was not aware of registered. No data analysis was performed before data col- condition assignment. The screen on the iPad was locked so lection stopped. that the participants could not exit out of the survey for the entirety of the study. Participants Alone with thought phase. After listening to the in- structions, participants were given a brief manipulation- A total of 266 participants between the ages of 18 and 25 check measure, and also a scale that assessed their au- years (M = 2.10 years, SD = 1.35; 194 females, 68 males, 2 tonomous motivation for solitude. Both of those measures who selected “other”, and 3 who did not report their gen- were administered prior to the actual solitude task to pre- der) took part in the study. The sample consisted of 98 vent retrospective bias after the event had taken place. Caucasian participants, 97 Asians or Asian American par- Then, participants spent time alone in the room with no Collabra: Psychology 3 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude other activity for 15 minutes, though they were not told the instruction well?”, “Did you find the experimenter at- how long they would be left on their own. After 15 minutes, tractive?”, “Did you find the experimenter friendly?”) to they completed a questionnaire that assessed their experi- mask the purpose of the measure. These items were rated ence with the activity, intention to engage with the activity on 7-point scales from 1 (not at all) to 7 (definitely so). again, and once again, their affect. Autonomous motivation for solitude. This variable Alone with alternative activity. After they spent 15 was assessed using eight items from a previous measure minutes alone with their thoughts, the research assistant of autonomous motivation for solitude (i.e., Nguyen et al., introduced the participants to another activity. Participants 2018). Example items are “I am about to undertake this ex- were given a bucket of approximately 1500 blue and red perience…” “because it sounds like something I would en- golf pencils, which had been emptied from their original joy”, and “Because I feel like I should do it even though I boxes and collated in the bucket (www.gpencil.com; Item#: am not entirely up for it” (reverse coded). These items were P405B). Participants were instructed to organize pencils by rated on 7-point scales (α = .81). color back into empty pencil boxes in an orderly fashion. Solitude experience and future intention. After sit- This activity was selected because it was banal and repeti- ting alone with their thoughts, pencil-sorting, and the free- tive. Participants did this task for 5 minutes, and then re- choice period, participants responded to five items with the ported their enjoyment for the activity. stem: “I found the experience”, followed by the adjectives: Free-choice period. After having been exposed to both “enjoyable”, “exciting”, “boring”, “frustrating”, “relaxing”. being alone with their thoughts, and being alone with an al- For being alone with thoughts, items were measured on ternative activity, participants were asked to remain in the 7-point scales, whereas for the pencil-sorting and free- room alone for 10 more minutes. At this point, the research choice periods, items were measured on 9-point scales. assistant instructed participants that they could either sit Additionally, only for the first alone period (i.e., sitting alone with their thoughts once again, or they could sort alone with thoughts), we included three items to assess more pencils. Participants’ enjoyment for this period was the extent to which participants experienced negative recorded at the end of the session. thoughts. Those items started with the stem: “I spent the Aside from the outcome measures reported in this paper, last period by myself”, which was followed by the phrases: three measures of stress, loneliness, and social connected- “Thinking about bothersome event or problem that I expe- ness were also sent to participants at the end of the day of rienced recently/in the past” (i.e., rumination), “Worrying” the lab session to determine whether condition assignment (i.e., worry), “Being stressed out by the thought that some- in the lab changed end of the day reports. one could be watching me” (i.e., paranoia). Items were mea- sured on 9-point scales. Transparency Statement Two items were used to assess participants’ intention to engage again with the experience that they had in the lab. All audio recordings, study materials, and analytical Those items were: “How likely are you to seek out time to sit scripts are shared on the Open Science Framework alone with your thoughts and feelings, similar to what you (https://osf.io/fszfw/?view_only=6770b48f22f545feb721c51 just experienced, in the next two weeks?” and “How much 7fb2048f3). The study’s hypotheses and analytical plans would you like to experience again what you just did in this were registered after data collection but prior to data analy- lab session (aka sitting alone with your thoughts and feel- ses (https://osf.io/gfyj9/register/5730e99a9ad5a102c5745a8a ings)?” ?view_only=d1f6d5235d7f4248b4c5e82908f95350). Free-choice behavior. To measure how much partici- pant engaged with the alternative activity when spending Measures time alone during free-choice period, the research assistant counted the number of pencils sorted at the beginning and Preregistered Measures the end of the 10-minute free-choice period. To do this, each pencil box was marked with numbered lines; the num- Manipulation check. Six items assessed participants’ ber associated with each line indicated the rows of pencils perceptions that the experimenter’s communication style that had been sorted into a particular box (see Appendix A). supported their basic psychological needs. Those items The research assistant was able to quickly count the number were adapted from the nine-item measure by La Guardia et of pencil boxes that had been completed and the number of al. (2000). Although we were mainly interested in autonomy pencil rows that had been sorted in those boxes that were support, self-determination theory suggests that autonomy incomplete when the research assistant entered the room. support is most effective when the receiver also perceived Each box of pencils originally held 144 pencils, which were that their feelings are cared for (i.e., relatedness support), organized into 8 rows (18 pencils per row). Based on these and they are capable of carrying out tasks and requests (i.e., numbers, to calculate the number of pencils sorted at the competence support; Su & Reeve, 2011). Therefore, partic- beginning and at the end of the 10-minute free-choice pe- ipants responded to items measuring each type of support: riod, we used the following formula: autonomy support (e.g., “Did the experimenter help you Total count = (number of completed boxes * 144) + (num- feel that you had choice in the experience you were about to ber of rows in incomplete boxes * 18) undertake?”); relatedness support (e.g., “Did you feel that Engagement with this alternative activity when alone the experimenter cared about you?”); and competence sup- was measured in terms of the difference between the total port (e.g., “Did the experimenter help you feel capable and count at the beginning and the end of the free-choice pe- effective in what you were about to do?”). We added three riod. items (i.e., “Did you feel that the experimenter explained Collabra: Psychology 4 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude End-of-day well-being. To explore the effects of condi- Statistical Analyses tion assignment on well-being throughout the remainder of All analyses were conducted using R program (Version the day, we included well-being measures at the beginning 1.3.1056). To test Hypotheses 1-3, we used the ‘aov’ func- of the lab session (i.e., pre-solitude) and again in a survey tion and performed planned contrast analysis using the that was sent to participants at the end of the day of the ‘t.test’ function in the R package ‘stats’ (Version 3.6.3). We lab session (i.e., end-of-day). We measured three variables: used ‘ci.smd’ function in the R package ‘MBESS’ (Version perceived stress, loneliness, and relatedness satisfaction, and asked participants to think about the items described 4.8.0) to calculate Cohen’s d effect sizes and the 95% con- below in relation to that evening and up to the moment they fidence intervals. Finally, we tested Hypothesis 4 using the ‘lm’ function from the ‘stats’ package (Version 3.6.3). received the survey. All three variables were measured on 7-point scales; this is a deviation from previous validated Results versions of the scales and was intended to maintain consis- tency within response scales across measures in the study. Manipulation Check Perceived stress. Participants completed the 4-item Per- ceived Stress Scale (Warttig et al., 2013), including items As shown in Table 1, we found an effect of the manipula- such as “I feel like difficulties are piling up so high that I tion on participants’ perception that the experimenter sup- cannot overcome them”, or “I feel confident about my abil- ported their autonomy for sitting alone with their thoughts ity to handle my personal problems” (pre-solitude: α = .80; (F(2, 261) = 19.18, p < .001, η = .13). Consistent with self- end-of-day: α = .81). determination theory, there was also an effect of condition Loneliness was measured using the 3-item UCLA Lone- on perception of relatedness (F(2, 263) = 21.30, p < .001, η liness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004), including the following = .14) and competence (F(2, 262) = 6.69, p = .001, η = .05) items: “I feel like I lack companionship”, “I feel left out”, need support. We present the planned contrasts in Table 2. and “I feel isolated from others around me” (pre-solitude: Overall, planned contrasts showed that the differences be- α = .84; end-of-day: α = .84). tween autonomy-supportive instruction and both neutral (d Relatedness satisfaction was measured using six items = 0.68, CI 95% [0.36, 1.00], t(137.05) = 4.33, p < .001) and measuring relatedness satisfaction subscale from the Basic controlling (d = 0.90, CI 95% [0.61, 1.20], t(172.42) = 6.24, p Psychological Need Satisfaction (La Guardia et al., 2000), < .001) instructions yielded large and significant effects. On including, “I really like the people I interacted with”, “I the other hand, the difference between the controlling and pretty much kept to myself and did not have a lot of social neutral instructions was smaller and not statistically signif- contacts” (pre-solitude: α = .73; end-of-day: α = .77). icant (d = -0.28, CI 95% [-0.58, 0.02], t(172.25) = -1.83, p = .068). Exploratory Measures Preregistered Analyses Affect. Before and after participants spent time sitting alone with their thoughts, they responded to emotion items Autonomous motivation for solitude. Condition pre- taken from previous research (De Dreu et al., 2008; Nguyen dicted autonomous motivation for solitude (F(2, 260) = 4.68, et al., 2018) to assess high-arousal positive affect (i.e., p = .010, η = .03) in the expected direction: autonomy- happy, elated, excited; Before: α = .78, After: α = .73), supportive instruction yielded the highest level, neutral in- high-arousal negative affect (i.e., afraid, worried, angry; Be- structions yielded an intermediate level, and controlling fore: α = .64, After: α = .74), low-arousal positive affect instructions yielded the lowest level of autonomous moti- (i.e., calm, relaxed, at ease; Before: α = .87, After: α = vation. Planned contrasts in Table 2 showed that the dif- .87), and low-arousal negative affect (i.e., bored, depressed, ference between autonomy-supportive instruction and con- lonely, sad, drained; Before: α = .77, After: α = .77). trolling instruction reached statistical significance (d = 0.43, CI 95% [0.14, 0.72], t(186.72) = 2.98, p = .003). The dif- Exclusion Criteria ference between controlling and neutral instructions was not significant (d = -0.30, CI 95% [-0.60, 0.00], t(162.47) We did not register exclusion criteria in our preregistra- = -1.96, p = .051), and the difference between autonomy- tion. However, after examining the data for free-choice be- supportive and neutral instructions was also not significant havior, we identified five participants for which the research (d = 0.13, CI 95% [-0.18, 0.44], t(151.3) = 0.82, p = .413). assistants miscounted the numbers of pencils the second These findings did not support our hypothesis that auton- time, yielding negative values. Because negative values for omy-supportive instructions would yield greater level of au- this variable were not meaningful, we coded those values as tonomous motivation when compared to neutral instruc- missing data. Further, after the free-choice period, we in- tions, or that neutral instructions would yield greater cluded one item that assessed compliance with the instruc- autonomous motivation when compared to controlling in- tion by asking the participant: “During the last alone pe- structions. We only observed a statistically significant dif- riod, were you engaging in any other activities other than ference between autonomy-supportive and controlling in- sorting pencils or sitting with yourself?”. We will report structions predicting relative autonomous motivation. analyses on free-choice behavior with and without those who answered ‘yes’ to this question. Collabra: Psychology 5 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of all Measured Variables, Omnibus F Tests and Effect Sizes (Study 1) Autonomy-supportive (n = 88) Controlling (n = 104) Neutral (n = 74) F(df) p Eta squared Perceived autonomy support M 6.02 4.96 5.31 19.18 .000 .13 SD 0.89 1.42 1.14 (2, 261) Perceived relatedness support M 5.61 4.55 5.07 21.30 .000 .14 SD 0.99 1.21 1.12 (2, 263) Perceived competence support M 6.09 5.62 5.83 6.69 .001 .05 SD 0.77 0.94 0.88 (2, 262) Autonomous motivation M 5.07 4.64 4.95 4.68 .010 .03 SD 0.94 1.07 1.01 (2, 260) Enjoy being alone with thoughts M 4.31 4.18 4.22 0.35 .707 .00 SD 1.09 1.11 1.09 (2, 260) Enjoyable M 4.14 3.80 4.00 0.99 .374 .01 SD 1.59 1.77 1.69 (2, 261) Exciting M 2.17 2.01 1.86 1.34 .263 .01 SD 1.24 1.19 1.13 (2, 261) Relaxing M 5.01 4.89 5.03 0.20 .818 .00 SD 1.60 1.50 1.61 (2, 262) Boring M 3.63 3.71 3.80 0.17 .846 .00 SD 1.84 1.77 1.82 (2, 262) Frujstrating M 2.13 1.99 1.85 .83 .438 .01 SD 1.52 1.29 1.24 (2, 262) Negative thoughts M 1.96 1.91 1.95 0.10 .904 .00 SD 0.71 0.72 0.77 (2, 262) Ruminate M 2.26 2.13 2.28 0.49 .616 .00 SD 1.08 1.11 1.20 (2, 262) Worry M 1.94 2.01 1.89 0.28 .757 .00 SD 1.07 1.07 1.01 (2, 262) Paranoid M 1.67 1.60 1.68 0.27 .764 .00 SD 0.86 0.70 0.89 (2, 262) Likelihood to be in solitude again M 4.97 5.06 4.93 0.06 .939 .00 Collabra: Psychology 6 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude SD 2.53 2.25 2.72 (2, 262) Desire to be in solitude again M 5.15 5.49 5.43 0.57 .568 .00 SD 2.36 2.12 2.38 (2, 261) Enjoy sorting pencils M 5.73 5.49 5.56 0.59 .553 .00 SD 1.63 1.57 1.49 (2, 261) Enjoy free-choice M 6.04 5.67 5.95 1.77 .172 .01 SD 1.34 1.55 1.38 (2, 257) Extra pencils during free-choice M 172.76 197.65 163.97 1.54 .226 .01 SD 126.93 13.40 146.71 (2, 256) Collabra: Psychology 7 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 2. Standardised Pairwise Comparisons (Cohen’s d) Between Conditions (Study 1) Autonomy-supportive – Controlling Controlling – Neutral Autonomy-supportive – Neutral t p d t p d t p d Perceived autonomy support 6.24 .000 .90 -1.83 .068 -.28 4.33 .000 .68 [.61, 1.20] [-.58, .02] [.36, 1.00] Perceived relatedness support 6.63 .000 .96 -2.92 .004 -.44 3.23 .002 .51 [.66, 1.26] [-.75, -.14] [.19, .82] Perceived competence support 3.73 .000 .54 -1.51 .132 -.23 1.93 .056 .30 [.25, .83] [-.53, .07] [-.01, .61] Autonomous motivation 2.98 .003 .43 -1.96 .051 -.30 0.82 .413 .13 [.14, .72] [-.60, .00] [-.18, .44] Enjoy being alone with thoughts 0.82 .411 .12 -0.26 .793 -.04 0.51 .611 .08 [-.16, .40] [-.34, .26] [-.23, .39] Enjoyable 1.40 .163 .20 -0.78 .439 -.12 0.53 .596 .08 [-.08, .49] [-.42, .18] [-.23, .39] Exciting 0.92 .360 .13 0.83 .409 .13 1.65 .102 .26 [-.15, .42] [-.17, .42] [-.05, .57] Relaxing 0.52 .605 .08 -0.56 .578 -.08 -0.06 .951 -.01 [-.21, .36] [-.38, .21] [-.32, .30] Boring -0.30 .763 -.04 -0.31 .755 -.05 -0.57 .569 -.09 [-.24, .33] [-.25, .35] [-.22, .40] Frustrating 0.66 .510 .10 0.73 .468 .11 1.27 .206 .20 [-.38, .19] [-.41, .19] [-.51, .11] Negative thoughts 0.43 .670 .06 -0.33 .745 -.05 0.06 .950 .01 [-.22, .35] [-.35, .25] [-.3, .32] Ruminate 0.82 .415 .12 -0.84 .400 -.13 -0.11 .915 -.02 [-.17, .40] [-.43, .17] [-.33, .29] Worry -0.43 .666 -.06 0.75 .456 .11 0.31 .759 .05 [-.35, .22] [-.18, .41] [-.26, .36] Paranoid 0.61 .541 .09 -0.64 .525 -.10 -0.06 .948 -.01 [-.20, .37] [-.40, .20] [-.32, .30] Collabra: Psychology 8 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Likelihood to do it again -0.26 .792 -.04 0.33 .745 .05 0.08 .937 .01 [-.32, .25] [-.25, .35] [-.30, .32] Desire to do it again -1.02 .307 -.15 0.15 .879 .02 -0.76 .451 -.12 [-.43, .14] [-.27, .32] [-.43, .19] Enjoy sorting pencils 1.05 .294 .15 -0.32 .751 -.05 0.70 .486 .11 [-.13, .44] [-.35, .25] [-.20, .42] Enjoy free-choice 1.80 .073 .26 -1.26 .209 -.19 0.45 .656 .07 [-.02, .55] [-.49, .11] [-.24, .38] Extra pencils during free-choice -1.31 .191 -.19 1.57 .118 .24 0.40 .693 .06 [-.47, .09] [-.06, .54] [-.25, .37] Collabra: Psychology 9 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Solitude experience and future intention. Contrary to arousal positive affect, and low-arousal negative affect. We Hypothesis 2, we did not find a significant effect of con- conducted 3 (Condition: autonomy-supportive, neutral, dition on composite scores of all items assessing partici- controlling (Between-Subjects)) x 2 (Time: pre vs. post lab pants’ experiences during their time spent alone with their session (Within-Subjects)) ANOVAs to investigate whether thoughts (F(2, 260) = 0.35, p = .707, η = .00). ANOVA changes from before to after being alone with thoughts were moderated by condition. Omnibus F tests did not show tests predicting individual items also did not yield signifi- significant condition-by-time interactions on any of the af- cant condition effect (see Table 2). There was also not a sig- fective outcomes. The between-subject effects of condition nificant condition effect on participants’ negative thoughts were also not significant, indicating that levels of affect av- during time spent alone with their thoughts (F(2, 262) = 2 eraged over both assessments did not differ significantly 0.10, p = .904, η = .00), and an additional test predicting across three conditions (Table 3). individual items did not yield significant effects. Previous studies by Nguyen et al. (2018) showed that sit- Finally, we did not find evidence that the three condi- ting alone with one’s thoughts for 15 minutes led to de- tions differed on self-reported likelihood of participants sit- creases in high-arousal positive and negative affect, a phe- ting alone with their thoughts in the future (F(2, 262) = 0.06, nomenon named the deactivation effect (i.e., studies 1-3). p = .939, η = .00), nor the desire to be in solitude again Consistent with that finding, we observed decreases of both (F(2, 261) = 0.57, p = .568, η = .00). high-arousal negative (F(1,524) = 6.87, p = .009, η = .01) Free-choice behavior. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, we did and high-arousal positive affect (F(1,523) = 16.66, p < .001, not find an effect of condition on the number of pencils η = .03); these changes were not moderated by condition sorted during the free-choice period (F(2, 256) = 1.54, p = (Table 4). .226, η = .01). We conducted the analysis without those Further, Nguyen et al. (2018) reported increases of low- participants who had said they were engaging in activities arousal positive and negative affect after people sat alone other than sorting pencils or sitting with themselves during with their thoughts or read (i.e., Studies 2-3). In the present free-choice period (n = 13); doing this did not change the study, we also found increased low-arousal positive affect finding. The average scores of additional pencils sorted in across conditions (F(2,523) = 19.77, p < .001, η = .04); this each of the three conditions (see Table 1) were partly con- change was not moderated by condition. Unlike Nguyen et sistent with the direction predicted in Hypothesis 3. The al. (2018), we did not find an increase in low-arousal neg- controlling-instruction condition yielded the highest num- ative affect. An omnibus F test showed that the change in ber of pencils sorted during the free-choice period. How- low-arousal negative affect was not significant (F(2,521) = ever, participants in the autonomy-supportive instruction 1.02, p = .313, η = .00); this (lack of an) effect was not condition did not sort the smallest number of additional moderated by condition (Table 4) pencils. End-of-day well-being. To test Hypothesis 4, we pre- Study 2 dicted that the autonomy-supportive instruction condition would show lower end-of-day stress and loneliness, and In Study 1, we found statistically significant differences greater relatedness to others. We conducted regression between autonomy-supportive and controlling-instruction analyses with dummy codes to compare autonomy-support- conditions on perception of autonomy support from the ive instructions with neutral instructions (Dum 1) and con- experimenter and self-reported relative autonomous mo- trolling instructions with neutral instructions (Dum 2), ac- tivation for solitude. The differences between these two counting for levels of well-being assessed prior to conditions in relation to the neutral-instruction condition participants sitting alone with their thoughts. We did not suggested that it was the controlling instruction that un- find significant effects of autonomy-supportive or control- dermined participants’ autonomous motivation for soli- ling instructions, compared to neutral instructions, predict- tude, whereas we did not find evidence that autonomy-sup- ing perceived stress (Dum 1: B = -.14, SE.B = .14, t(247) = portive instruction had positive impact on this outcome. -1.01, p = .312; Dum 2: B = -.05, SE.B = .14, t(247) = -0.33, The wide confidence interval around the effect size of the p = .743), loneliness (Dum 1: B = -.17, SE.B = .16, t(247) = controlling and neutral-instruction condition comparison -1.08, p = .280; Dum 2: B = -.03, SE.B = .16, t(247) = -0.20, p predicting autonomous motivation for solitude suggested = .841). The effect of the autonomy-supportive versus neu- that further research is needed to confirm whether this is a tral instructions predicting end-of-day levels of relatedness true effect. was also not significant (Dum 1: B = .26, SE.B = .13, t(249) = The difference between autonomy-supportive and con- 1.97, p = .050), and we also did not find an effect of control- trolling-instruction conditions was consistent with previ- ling versus neutral instructions predicting end-of-day lev- ous literature that contrasted choiceful and enforced soli- els of relatedness (Dum 2: B = .05, SE.B = .13, t(249) = 0.36, tude (Galanaki, 2004; Lay et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2018). p = .717). Therefore, we did not find evidence that receiving Here, we demonstrated this effect in an experimental de- either autonomy-supportive or controlling instructions sig- sign. Because we wanted to focus on an effect in which we nificantly affected end-of-day well-being when compared had more confidence and increase statistical power to de- with neutral instructions. tect this effect, in Study 2 we directly contrasted autonomy- supportive and controlling-instruction conditions. As such, Exploratory Analyses Study 2 was a direct replication of Study 1, with the re- moval of the neutral-instruction condition. We accepted as We looked at changes in four forms of affect: high- a cost of this decision that we could no longer determine arousal positive affect, high-arousal negative affect, low- Collabra: Psychology 10 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 3. Regression Analyses Examining the Effects of Autonomy Supportive and Controlling Instructions on End-of-Day Well-Being B SE.B ß 95% CI (ß) t p End-of-day stress (Intercept) .67 .19 .05 [-.11, .21] 3.60 <.001 Pre-solitude stress .77 .05 .73 [.64, .82] 16.78 < .001 Dum 1 (Autonomy-supportive vs. Neutral) -.14 .14 -.11 [-.33, .11] -1.01 .312 Dum 2 (Controlling vs. Neutral) -.05 .14 -.04 [-.25, .18] -0.33 .743 End-of-day loneliness (Intercept) .70 .17 .06 [-.13, .24] 4.14 < .001 Pre-solitude loneliness .60 .05 .64 [.54, .74] 13.00 < .001 Dum 1 (Autonomy-supportive vs. Neutral) -.17 .16 -.14 [-.38, .11] -1.08 .280 Dum 2 (Controlling vs. Neutral) -.03 .16 -.02 [-.26, .22] -0.20 .841 End-of-day relatedness (Intercept) 1.28 .29 -.10 [-.27, .08] 4.38 < .001 Pre-solitude relatedness .75 .05 .67 [.57, .76] 14.08 < .001 Dum 1 (Autonomy-supportive vs. Neutral) .26 .13 .24 [-.00, .47] 1.97 .050 Dum 2 (Controlling vs. Neutral) .05 .13 .04 [-.19, .27] 0.36 .717 which of the two experimental conditions drove observed controlling-instruction conditions on free-choice behavior. differences. We preregistered hypotheses regarding effects Free choice behavior was operationalized as the extent to of condition on the following outcomes: which participants spent more time sitting alone with Changes in affect. First, we wanted to investigate the thoughts or engaged with an alternative activity made effects of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instruc- available to them in the lab. We did not find a significant tions on change in affect from before to after solitude. In difference between the two conditions on this variable in Study 1, we conducted exploratory analyses to investigate Study 1, but the means were in the predicted direction: the condition-by-time interactions and did not find evi- those in the controlling-instruction condition sorted more dence that condition moderated these changes in affect. extra pencils into boxes than those in the autonomy-sup- However, one previous finding by Nguyen et al. (2018; Study portive instruction condition. Therefore, we tested the 4) suggested that those with higher autonomous motivation same comparison in Study 2 using a larger sample. for solitude experienced more low-arousal positive affect Free-choice solitude experience. The third hypothesis and less low-arousal negative affect than those with lower concerned the comparison between autonomy-supportive autonomous motivation for solitude. In the 2018 study, au- and controlling-instruction conditions predicting experi- tonomous motivation was treated as an individual differ- ences during the free-choice period. In Study 1, we did not ence and was not manipulated. In Study 1, we manipulated find a significant difference between the two conditions for the instructions for being alone with thoughts and found a participants’ experiences during the alone with thought pe- difference between autonomy-supportive and controlling- riod. The mean difference between these two conditions instruction conditions on autonomous motivation for soli- during the free-choice period was in the predicted direction tude. However, this effect did not translate to different but was not statistically significant (d = 0.26, CI 95% [-0.02, changes in low-arousal positive and negative affect as sug- 0.55], t(185.58) = 1.80, p = .073). We sought to confirm this gested in Nguyen et al. (2018; Study 4). This could be a difference in Study 2 and predicted that those in the au- false negative, so we planned to confirm the condition-by- tonomy-supportive instruction condition would experience time interactions again. Specifically, we made the following greater enjoyment, excitement, and relaxation than those predictions for low-arousal positive and negative affect: 1) in the controlling-instruction condition. Both types of low-arousal affect would increase after soli- End-of-day relatedness. The fourth hypothesis con- tude, and 2) there would be condition-by-time interactions cerned the effect of autonomy-supportive versus control- such that the manipulation would lead to a greater increase ling instructions on participants’ levels of relatedness at the in low-arousal positive affect and a smaller increase in low- end of the day. The effect of autonomy-supportive instruc- arousal negative affect in the autonomy-supportive instruc- tions (versus neutral instructions) on day-end relatedness tion condition, compared to controlling-instruction con- in Study 1 was in the predicted direction but did not reach dition. For high-arousal positive and negative affect, we statistical significance. We sought to confirm this effect and only predicted a within-subject decrease for both condi- predicted that, compared to controlling instructions, au- tions (i.e., no interaction). tonomy-supportive instructions would lead to greater relat- Free-choice behavior. The second hypothesis con- edness at the end of the day. cerned the comparison between autonomy-supportive and Collabra: Psychology 11 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Affect Variables, With Cohen’s d Effect Sizes Depicting Changes From Prior to After Alone With Thoughts (Study 1) HANA HAPA LANA LAPA d d d d Condition T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] Autonomy M(SD) 1.61 (.72) 1.50 (.67) -.19 2.44 (.89) 2.15 (.81) -.52 1.95 (.76) 1.94 (.68) -.00 3.34 (1.01) 3.68 (.97) .33 supportive [-.40, .02] [-.75, -.30] [-.21, .21] [.11, .54] Controlling M(SD) 1.57 (.69) 1.43 (.61) -.26 2.22 (.73) 2.02 (.70) -.33 1.93 (.73) 2.08 (.80) .28 3.31 (.89) 3.63 (.86) .36 [-.46, -.07] [-.53, -.13] [.08, .47] [.16, .56] Neutral M(SD) 1.60 (.59) 1.39 (.56) -.42 2.31 (.79) 1.94 (.75) -.60 1.97 (.72) 2.01 (.72) .04 3.16 (.93) 3.61 (.94) .45 [-.66, -.18] [-.85, -.35] [-.19, .27] [.20, .69] 2 2 2 2 Between-subject F(2,524) = 0.47, p = .624, η = .00 F(2,523) = 3.00, p = 051, η = .01 F(2,521) = 0.26, p = .768, η = .00 F(2,523) = 0.70, p = .497, η = .00 (Condition) 2 2 2 2 Within-subject F(1,524) = 6.87, p = .009, η = .01 F(1,523) = 16.66, p < .001, η = .03 F(1,521) = 1.02, p = .313, η = .00 F(1,523) = 19.77, p < .001, η = .04 (Change) 2 2 2 2 Interaction F(2,524) = 0.24, p = .786, η = .00 F(2,523) = 0.48, p = .618, η = .00 F(2,521) = 0.59, p = .553, η = .00 F(2,523) = 0.23, p = .792, η = .00 (Condition x Change) Notes. HANA = High-arousal negative affect; HAPA = High-arousal positive affect; LANA = Low-arousal negative affect; LAPA = Low-arousal positive affect Collabra: Psychology 12 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Future engagement with solitude. The fifth and final would only include those participants who provided com- hypothesis concerned the effect of autonomy-supportive plete data. We deviated from preregistered plan because we versus controlling instructions on participants’ later en- also treated negative values for the free-choice behavior as gagement with solitude after the lab session. This new vari- missing data. Further, after the free-choice period, we in- able was not included in Study 1. We predicted that par- cluded one item that assessed compliance with the instruc- ticipants who received autonomy-supportive instructions tions by asking the participant: “During the last alone pe- would be more likely to engage in solitude later than those riod, were you engaging in any other activities other than who received controlling instructions. sorting pencils or sitting with yourself?”. We will report analyses on the free-choice behavior variable with and Method without those who answered yes to this question. Recruitment Method Statistical Analyses Study 2 was conducted between October, 2017 and May, All analyses were conducted using R program (Version 2018. We preregistered a sample size of 352 to detect a 1.3.1056). To test Hypothesis 1, we used the ‘aov’ function medium effect size of d = 0.30 at α = .05 with .80 power. To and performed paired t-tests using the ‘t.test’ function in the R package ‘stats’ (Version 3.6.3). We extracted the account for cancellations or no-shows, we created 450 time means and standard deviations of affect measures before slots on the undergraduate participant recruitment plat- and after the first period of being alone with thoughts, then form. used ‘ci.sm’ function in the R package ‘MBESS’ (Version Participants 4.8.0) to calculate Cohen’s d effect sizes of pre-post in-lab solitude experience and the 95% confidence intervals. By the end of the recruitment period, we obtained a sam- To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, we performed independent ple of 369 participants between the ages of 18 and 28 years two-way t-tests using the ‘t.test’ function from the same (M = 20.09 years, SD = 1.36; 258 females, 109 males, 1 chose package ‘stats’. We tested Hypothesis 4 using the ‘lm’ func- “others”, and 1 did not report their gender). Of these, 147 tion and Hypothesis 5 using the ‘chisq.test’ function from identified as Caucasian, 133 identified as Asian or Pacific Is- the ‘stats’ package. In a later section at the end of the Re- land, 20 identified as Black, 38 as Hispanic or Latino, and 20 sults section of Study 2, we will use the ‘forestplot’ pack- identified as mixed races or other races (11 did not report age (version 2.0) to compare all effect sizes of non-signifi- ethnicity). cant results in Study 1 and Study 2 to evaluate consistencies across two studies. Transparency Statements Results All audio recordings, study materials, and analytical scripts are shared on OSF (link: https://osf.io/w67gu/ We followed the same analytic approaches for all the ?view_only=40179f7fefff49cf8fdc0a18d8d1c9bf), and the variables that were taken from Study 1. We will only present study’s hypotheses and analytic plan were preregistered af- the findings of preregistered hypotheses below. All analyses ter data collection but prior to data analyses (link: that were not part of the Study 2 preregistration are in- https://osf.io/6fs72/?view_only=89a68da27c2647a59d3ea4c cluded in the Supplementary Materials (see table S1). cebaacde9). Manipulation Check Measures As can be seen in Table 4, there was a significant dif- Measures were the same as those used in Study 1. The ference in perceived autonomy support between autonomy- only one measure added to this study was one item that supportive and controlling-instruction conditions in the ex- asked participants: “After the lab session today, did you pected direction (d = 0.65, CI 95% [0.44, 0.86], t(347.73) = spend time sitting with yourself, similar to what you have 6.28, p < .001). Consistent with findings of Study 1, the experienced in the lab?”. The participants were given the difference was also significant for relatedness support (d = following options to respond: 0 = “not at all”, 1 = “yes, for 1.09, CI 95% [0.87, 1.31], t(351.43) = 1.45, p < .001) and com- less than a minute”, 2 = “yes, for 1—5 minutes”, 3 = “yes, for petence support (d = 0.37, CI 95% [0.17, 0.58], t(365.14) = 5—10 minutes”, 4 = “yes, for 10—15 minutes”, and 5 = “yes, for 3.58, p < .001). more than 15 minutes”. We created two indices: for one, we entered the variable into the analysis as an ordinal variable Preregistered Analyses with six discrete categories ranging from 0 to 5, and for the Changes in affect. Hypothesis 1 predicted both main ef- other, we created a binary variable by recoding values rang- ing from 1 through 5 into one category indicating whether fects for within-subject changes from before to after sitting participants had spent any time engaging in solitude again alone with one’s thoughts – decreases in high-arousal types after the lab session. of affect and increases in low-arousal types of affect – as well as condition-by-time interactions for only low-arousal Exclusion Criteria types of affect. Only our predictions for the within-subject main effects of time were supported, which is also consis- The only preregistered exclusion criterion was that we tent with the main findings of Nguyen et al. (2018). Specifi- Collabra: Psychology 13 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude cally, we found significant within-subject decreases on both dinal variable with 6 discrete categories, regression analysis did not yield significant condition effect (B = .15, SE.B = .16, high-arousal positive affect (F(1, 729) = 28.63, p < .001, η = t(305) = 0.96, p = .338) (Table 7a). .04), and high-arousal negative affect (F(1, 730) = 14.77, p < When we recode this variable into binary measure of .001, η = .02). We also found significant within-subject in- whether participants engaged in solitude after the lab ses- creases of both low-arousal positive affect (F(1, 730) = 3.71, sion at all, we observed 71 out of 151 (47%) participants p < .001, η = .04) and low-arousal negative affect (F(1, 731) in the autonomy-supportive instruction condition indicated = 4.00, p = .046, η = .01). We did not find significant condi- they spent some time in a similar solitude experience after tion-by-time interactions for any types of affect (see Table the lab. On the other hand, 62 out of 156 (40%) participants 5). in the controlling-instruction condition said they did. A These results replicated the main findings of Nguyen et chi-square test also did not yield significant effect (χ = al. (2018) that high-arousal affective states dropped, and 1.37, p = .242). Therefore, we did not find support for Hy- low-arousal affective states rose, after solitude. Though pothesis 5 (Table 7b). Nguyen et al.'s Study 4 found that individual differences in autonomous motivation for solitude moderated the effect Evaluation of Effects Across Studies of solitude on low-arousal affect, we did not extend this finding to show that supporting autonomy through the ma- Across both studies, most of the results on outcomes nipulation we used would result in such changes. There- measured during the lab session and outside of the lab fore, Hypothesis 1 was only partly supported, such that we yielded null effects. Results on outcomes measured outside only found evidence supporting predictions for within-sub- of the lab session were trivial and inconsistent in directions ject changes but not for condition-by-time interactions. of the observed effects. In this section, we will evaluate the Free-choice behavior. Hypothesis 2 predicted a condi- effect sizes of the differences between autonomy-support- tion effect on free-choice behavior (sorting pencils rather ive and controlling-instruction conditions on in-lab out- than sitting alone with one’s thoughts). We did not find comes across two studies. support for this hypothesis. The difference between auton- In Figure 1, we presented forest plots of Cohen’s ds rep- omy-supportive and controlling-instruction conditions was resenting the differences between these two conditions on in the predicted direction but was not significant (d = -0.12, all the outcomes measured in Studies 1 and 2. We compared CI 95% [-0.32, 0.09], t(359.24) = -1.13, p = .257) (see Table effect sizes observed to an interval null between -0.30 and 6). We conducted the analysis excluding participants who 0.30; that is, we determined that an effect size smaller than reported engaging in activities other than sorting pencils or 0.30 either in favor of the autonomy-supportive or control- sitting with themselves during free-choice period (n = 15); ling-instruction condition would not be practically mean- this did not change the finding. ingful. The interval null between -0.30 and 0.30 was an ar- Free-choice solitude experience. Hypothesis 3 pre- bitrary choice, as there was no clear reference for which dicted that those who received autonomy-supportive in- effect sizes to expect from the previous literature for our structions would have more positive experiences during the manipulation. This interval null was also not a mathemati- free-choice period when they were left alone in the room cal choice, as we entirely based our decision of the interval to freely choose between sitting with their thoughts or en- null on what the first author subjectively considered to be gaging in an alternative activity. We did not find support for practically meaningful. Given that our studies used a rather this hypothesis. There was no condition effect on composite subtle manipulation, we did not expect to get an effect size scores of all items assessing participants’ experiences with as large as .40 or .50, but we considered .20 too small to be being alone with their thoughts (d = 0.06, CI 95% [-0.15, practically meaningful. We settled for d = .30 as the large- 0.26], t(363.74) = 0.54, p = .593). T-tests on individual items enough effect size to aim for for this type of manipulation. also yielded no condition effect (Table 6). Based on a meta-analysis by Ntoumanis et al. (2021), the End-of-day relatedness. Hypothesis 4 predicted that smallest effect size of SDT-based interventions was also es- those who received autonomy-supportive instructions in timated to be around .30. the lab would experience greater levels of relatedness com- As seen in Figure 1, most of the effect sizes obtained pared to those who received controlling instructions. We in Study 1 have 95% confidence intervals that contain val- did not find support for this hypothesis. Regression analysis ues falling inside the null interval. However, because of the showed no condition effect on end-of-day relatedness (B = wide confidence intervals, it is difficult to draw meaningful -.17, SE.B = .11, t(300) = -1.60, p = .110), controlling for par- conclusions about these null effects. We observed clearer ticipants’ levels of relatedness prior to solitude experience patterns in Study 2, with smaller confidence intervals that (Table 7a). allowed some level of precision to make meaningful conclu- Future engagement with solitude. Hypothesis 5 pre- sions about the null effects. Particularly, confidence inter- dicted that those who received autonomy-supportive in- vals of the effects on paranoid thoughts in solitude, likeli- structions in the lab would be more likely to engage in a hood to be in solitude again, enjoyment with pencil-sorting, similar solitude experience outside of the lab, when com- and enjoyment with free-choice period sat entirely inside pared to those who received controlling instructions. Of the the null interval. We determined those effect sizes too small sample, 307 participants responded to the question asking to be considered practically meaningful. whether they had engaged in similar solitude after the lab session. Treating future engagement with solitude as an or- Collabra: Psychology 14 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Affect Variables, with Cohen’s d Effect Sizes Depicting Changes From Prior to After Alone With Nothing (Study 2) HANA HAPA LANA LAPA d d d d Condition T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] T1 T2 [CI 95%] Autonomy M(SD) 1.70 (.66) 1.51 (.66) -.34 2.27 (.63) 2.09 (.73) -.29 2.06 (.79) 2.11 (.80) .08 3.23 (.86) 3.64 (1.00) .45 supportive [-.50, -.19] [-.44, -.14] [.06, .23] [.29, .60] Controlling M(SD) 1.64 (.67) 1.47 (.57) -.30 2.31 (.72) 1.94 (.71) .62 2.01 (.70) 2.19 (.77) .29 3.25 (.88) 3.62 (1.02) .38 [-.45, -.16] [-.78, -.47] [.14, .43] [.23, .53] 2 2 2 2 Between-subject F(1,730) = 1.18, p = .277, η = .00 F(1,729) = 1.00, p = .318, η = .00 F(1,731) = 0.08, p = .784, η = .00 F(1,730) = 0.00, p = .989, η = .00 (Condition) 2 2 2 2 Within-subject F(1,730) = 14.77, p < .001, η = .02 F(1,729) = 28.63, p < .001, η = .04 F(1,731) = 4.00, p = .046, η = .01 F(1,730) = 3.71, p < .001, η = .04 (Change) 2 2 2 2 Interaction F(1,730) = 0.05, p = .818, η = .00 F(1,729) = 3.57, p = .059, η = .00 F(1,731) = 1.30, p = .255, η = .00 F(1,730) = 0.00, p = .829, η = .00 (Condition x Change) Notes. HANA = High-arousal negative affect; HAPA = High-arousal positive affect; LANA = Low-arousal negative affect; LAPA = Low-arousal positive affect Collabra: Psychology 15 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of all Measured Variables, T-tests, Effect Sizes (Study 2) Autonomy support (n = 180) Controlling (n = 189) t df p (one-tailed) d Perceived autonomy support M 5.81 5.01 6.28 357.73 < .001 .65 SD 1.10 1.35 [.44, .86] Perceived relatedness support M 5.49 4.31 10.45 351.43 < .001 1.09 SD .95 1.20 [.87, 1.31] Perceived competence support M 6.04 5.67 3.58 365.14 < .001 .37 SD .92 1.03 [.17, .58] Extra pencils during free-choice M 197.80 215.71 -1.13 359.24 .257 -.12 SD 151.08 149.16 [-.32, .09] Enjoy free-choice period M 5.92 5.84 0.54 363.74 .593 .06 SD 1.48 1.50 [-.15, .26] Enjoyable M 5.64 5.62 0.10 364.64 .920 .01 SD 2.10 2.06 [-.19, .21] Exciting M 3.35 3.38 -0.11 363.41 .910 -.01 SD 2.19 2.15 [-.22, .19] Relaxing M 5.81 5.70 0.53 361.26 .594 .06 SD 2.14 2.01 [-.15, .26] Collabra: Psychology 16 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Table 7a. Regression Analyses Examining the Effects of Autonomy Supportive and Controlling Instructions on End-of-Day Relatedness and Future Engagement With Solitude B SE.B ß CI 95% (ß) t p End-of-day relatedness (Intercept) 2.14 .29 -.00 [-.09, .09] 7.31 <.001 Pre-solitude relatedness .63 .05 .57 [.48, .66] 12.05 < .001 Autonomy-supportive vs. Controlling -.17 .11 -.08 [-.17, .02] -1.60 .110 Future Engagement with Solitude (Intercept) .96 .11 .00 [-.11, .11] 8.72 < .001 Autonomy-supportive vs. Controlling .15 .16 .05 [-.06, .17] .96 .338 Table 7b. Chi-square Test Comparing Number of Participants from Autonomy Supportive (n = 151) and Controlling Conditions (n = 156) Showing Future Engagement with Solitude Outside of the Lab Did not engage in solitude Engaged in solitude χ p Autonomy supportive 80 71 1.37 .242 Controlling 94 62 Figure 1. Forest Plots Illustrating Cohen’s ds, Representing Differences Between Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling-Instruction Conditions on In-Lab Outcomes in Both Study 1 and Study 2 Notes. These forest plots compare the differences between autonomy-supportive and controlling-instruction conditions on in-lab measures against the interval null of -.30 and .30. In these plots, the blue squares represent the standardized differences (Cohen’s d) observed in Study 1 and Study 2, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) around those coefficients. The dotted vertical lines represent the upper and lower bounds of the interval null. The effects that have 95% CI falling within the interval null were determined too small to be practically meaningful. Standardized differences that fall to the right of zero value indicates that the mean of autonomy-supportive instruction condition was greater than control; the ones to the left of zero value indicates that the mean of controlling-instruction condition was greater. Other null effects that have values both inside and out- comes favor the autonomy-supportive instruction condi- side of the -0.30 and 0.30 range were inconclusive. That tion and the effects on negative outcomes favor the con- means we could not determine whether there was truly no trolling-instruction condition. For outcomes like “exciting”, effect of instructions on those outcomes, or whether our “relaxing”, “frustrating”, and extra pencils during free- sample was not sufficiently powered to detect an effect. choice period which yielded null results, we would require a There were some meaningful patterns that can guide future larger sample size to draw meaningful conclusions around research; Figure 1 showed that the effects on positive out- whether there was indeed an absence of effect. Collabra: Psychology 17 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude We conducted the same procedure to evaluate the effects of our manipulation on end-of-day measures and illustrated observed effect sizes in Figure 2. In Study 1, we investigated the effects of condition on ratings of perceived stress, lone- liness, and relatedness at the end of the day that the par- ticipants participated in the lab session. In Study 2, we only included ratings of relatedness and whether participants pursued solitude outside of the lab in the surveys sent out at the end of the day. We controlled for baseline levels of those variables and obtained the beta (ß) coefficients that represent the effects of the autonomy-supportive instruc- tion relative to the neutral instruction, and of the control- ling instruction relative to the neutral instruction (see Table 3). To compare the results obtained in Study 1 with those of Study 2, we performed an additional analysis to obtain the ß coefficient that represents the effect of the autonomy-sup- portive instruction on end-of-day measures, relative to the controlling instruction (see Table S2 in Supplementary Ma- terials). Again, we compared observed standardized coeffi- cients to an interval null between -0.30 and 0.30. As seen in Figure 2, most coefficients obtained across two studies have 95% confidence intervals that contain values falling inside the null interval. Similar to the results for in-lab measures, the coefficients obtained in Study 1 have wider confidence intervals compared to those in Study 2, which revealed clearer that the effects of our manipulation on end-of-day measures were likely too small to be practically meaningful. This suggests to us that while our manipula- tion might have some observable effects in the lab, the ef- fects might not be prolonged and extended to participants’ experiences at the end of the day. Discussion The present research tested several self-determination theory hypotheses that supporting people’s autonomy for solitude would increase their autonomous motivation for sitting alone with their thoughts and subsequently help them enjoy the experience better. Previous research has suggested that the experience of sitting alone with one’s thoughts is a particularly challenging and unwelcomed ex- perience for many (Buttrick et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2014). In both studies, we developed different instructions that either supported autonomy for time spent alone or pres- sured participants to be alone with controlling language. Figure 2. Forest Plots Illustrating Standardized Our manipulation assessing perceived autonomy support Coefficient ß, Representing Differences Between suggested that the instructions were effective. Despite that, Pairs of Conditions on End-of-Day Measures in Both we did not find evidence that autonomy-supportive or con- Study 1 and Study 2 trolling instructions administered in a laboratory setting Notes. These forest plots compare the differences between pairs of conditions on impacted participants’ experiences, behavior, or their in- end-of-day measures against the interval null of -.30 and .30. In these plots, the blue squares represent the standardized coefficients (ß) observed in Study 1 and tention to experience time alone with their thoughts again. Study 2, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) around those coefficients. The dotted In Study 1, we found support for Hypothesis 1 that dif- vertical lines represent the upper and lower bounds of the interval null. Coeffi- ferent instructions changed participants’ perceived au- cients that fall to the right of zero value indicates that the mean of autonomy- supportive instruction condition was greater than control; the ones to the left of tonomous motivation for sitting alone with their thoughts. zero value indicates that the mean of controlling-instruction condition was We found that the difference was only significant when greater. The effects that have 95% CI falling within the interval null were deter- comparing the autonomy-supportive versus controlling in- mined too small to be practically meaningful. structions, but neither set of instructions was particularly effective when compared to the neutral instruction. We that motivation for sitting alone with thoughts might only found the difference between autonomy-supportive and differ between situations that are perceived to be clearly controlling instructions to be statistically significant in supportive of autonomy or clearly controlling. However, the Study 2, and in the same direction. This finding suggests Collabra: Psychology 18 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude effect size was much smaller in Study 2, indicating that the vals across both studies allowed us to draw meaningful con- effect of our particular instructions on autonomous moti- clusions about some of the null effects. We determined that vation for solitude would require future replications with the differences between autonomy-supportive and control- larger samples to ensure that this effect is true. ling-instruction conditions on paranoid thoughts in soli- We did not find support for hypotheses in relation to the tude, likelihood to be in solitude again, enjoyment with effect of the autonomy-supporting manipulation on partic- pencil-sorting, and enjoyment with free-choice period, ipants’ experiences when sitting alone with their thoughts, were too small to be considered practically meaningful. Ad- their intention and desire to be in solitude again, the well- ditionally, the effects of instructions on participants’ rat- being benefits they gained from it, nor their actual subse- ings of their well-being and likelihood of pursuing similar quent engagement with solitude. We tested these hypothe- solitude experience outside of the lab were also not likely ses using both self-reported and behavioral measures. First, to be meaningful. This became clearer in Study 2 when the we asked participants to report on their experience imme- effects of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instruc- diately after the solitude experience. Second, we offered tions on end-of-day measures have smaller confidence in- them an alternative, rather banal and boring task, and then tervals which fall completely inside the interval null. The had them sit alone again to see whether they would prefer other null effects were inconclusive as they had 95% confi- engaging with the alternative task or sit alone with their dence intervals that include values both inside and outside thoughts. Third, we distributed another survey after the of the range between -0.30 and 0.30—an interval that we lab session to ask about participants’ end-of-day well-being used to determine whether effects were too small to be con- and whether they engaged in a similar solitude experience sidered meaningful. Replications using larger samples are again. Overall, we did not find evidence that receiving au- required to determine the presence or absence of meaning- tonomy-supportive nor controlling instructions changed ful effects. From our results, we suggest that future studies these outcomes. that attempt to use the same or a modified version of our In Study 2, we preregistered that after sitting alone with manipulation to focus on achieving meaningful effects on their thoughts, participants would display drops in high- in-lab measures first, before attempting to investigating the arousal types of affect, similar to the findings reported by effects on more distal outcomes. Further, we suggest that Nguyen et al. (2018). We found support for this hypothesis. future manipulation also incorporate other self-determina- We also preregistered that the autonomy-supportive in- tion theory techniques, such as identifying barriers to soli- struction condition would show larger increases in low- tary enjoyment (e.g., negative social norms that associate arousal positive affect but smaller increases in low-arousal solitude with loneliness) or expressing empathy around the negative affect compared to the controlling-instruction challenges of solitude. These techniques have been showed condition. We did not find support for this hypothesis. Our to enhance the effectiveness of self-determination theory- participants generally experienced increases in both low- informed interventions in health domain (Ntoumanis et al., arousal positive affect (e.g., feeling calm) and low-arousal 2021). negative affect when sitting alone with their thoughts, and Additionally, there are several limitations to our study these increases were not moderated by conditions as pre- procedure. First, our study was advertised as a “Solitude dicted. Patterns of effect sizes for changes in all types of af- study”. It is possible this title attracted participants who fect were consistent with the patterns reported in Nguyen were more open to experiencing solitude because they et al. (2018) meta-analyses, indicating that the deactivation found it a positive experience. It is equally possible that effect of solitude was at play in all conditions. those who felt they struggled with excessive solitude felt in- Nguyen et al. (2018) argued that drops in high-arousal clined to take part. While our data cannot speak to this is- types of affect could be the regulatory benefits of solitude. sue, it may be useful to consider in future research. Given However, that does not mean these benefits are recognized that the word “solitude” might carry different meanings or appreciated by our participants. In the present research, (Galanaki, 2004; Wang, 2006), we suggest that future re- when offered another opportunity to do it again, only a searchers studying these topics advertise their study using small portion of participants chose to spend time during the a more generic name. free-choice period sitting alone with their thoughts, while Another limitation is the lack of precision in our cal- the majority instead engaged in the banal, unattractive ac- culation of extra pencils sorted during the free-choice pe- tivity of sorting pencils. This happened regardless of which riod as a proxy to measure participants’ engagement with instructions participants received. That is, in both studies an alternative, unattractive, activity instead of sitting alone we did not find evidence for our preregistered hypothesis with thoughts. To save time, our research assistants did not that autonomy supportive or controlling instructions would count the actual number of pencils that participants sorted affect this choice. We explored a potential explanation in into boxes, but instead read the lines marked on the boxes the Supplementary Materials (see Table S3), that the par- that indicate how many rows of pencils had been sorted. ticipants could have found the pencil-sorting task more in- Then we applied an equation that assumed one row approx- teresting and enjoyable and therefore the majority of them imates to 18 pencils and one box approximates to 144 pen- would prefer this task over being alone with their thoughts. cils. In fact, it is possible that participants could have fit- We did not find support for this explanation. Overall, we did ted less than or more than 18 pencils into one row, or less not find significant differences between ratings of enjoy- than or more than 144 per box. Therefore, this measure was ment for the pencil-sorting task compared to sitting alone not precise, and furthermore was prone to mistakes, as evi- with one’s thoughts. denced by a number of cases that resulted in negative num- Examination of effect sizes and their confidence inter- bers. For future research, we recommended a different ba- Collabra: Psychology 19 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude nal activity that would be less prone to those errors. This would be worthwhile to investigate the reasons that it may activity should satisfy the following criteria: 1) It should be be difficult to sit alone with one’s own thoughts. This re- repetitive and present no novel stimulation, 2) Its self-re- search is particularly relevant now, when the rise of media ported ratings on enjoyment should be comparable to those technologies and increasing pressure to be productive make of sitting alone with thoughts. Some pilot testing might be it easy for us to be preoccupied with deadlines, responsi- necessary to identify such a task and align it with the spe- bilities, and the distracting draw of our smartphones. Many cific population under study. studies have begun to highlight the benefits of solitude for Finally, because our studies followed a structured proto- mood regulation (Nguyen et al., 2018) and rest (Hammond, col in the lab, it is difficult to generalize this work to real- 2016), so it is important to define contextual factors that life settings. While an experimental design in the lab in- could improve the quality of this experience. creases internal validity, the limitations of our studies lie in their lack of ecological validity and generalizability. To ad- dress this limitation, we have two recommendations. First, we suggest that future research could use a similar design to Author contributions that used in Nguyen et al. (2018), which combined the use The first author, Thuy-vy T. Nguyen, conceptualized the of a diary design and a switching-replications experimental study, developed the design, oversaw data collection, design (Shadish et al., 2002). This methodology would al- analysed the data, and drafted the manuscript. The last low us to observe the effect of autonomy-supportive versus author, Edward L. Deci, supervised conceptualization, and controlling instructions on people’s experiences with sit- study design. The second author helped revise the manu- ting alone with their thoughts in their natural environment, script critically for publication. All authors approved the fi- and to investigate situational factors (e.g., living alone or nal version of the article. sharing with others) that might interact with daily motiva- tion for this activity. Further, by exposing participants to Competing interests autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructions for a week instead of on a single occasion, researchers could ob- No competing interest exists. serve the cumulative effect of instructions on motivation over time. Moving the study outside of the laboratory set- Funding ting also makes it possible to recruit samples other than un- dergraduate students. Particularly, this would allow future A grant from the European Research Council (851890; researchers to also investigate whether different motiva- SOAR) supported Netta Weinstein. The funders had no role tional framings for solitude could have varied effects on dif- in study design, data analysis, decision to publish, or prepa- ferent age groups and people with different living arrange- ration of the article. ments (e.g., living in shared household versus living alone). Second, we suggest researchers explore other factors that Data accessibility statement could interfere with participants’ engagement with solitude or their autonomous motivation for it, such as their pre-ex- All the stimuli, presentation materials, participant data, isting preference for solitude (Burger, 1995; Cramer & Lake, and analysis scripts can be found on this paper’s project 1998), or history of experienced ostracism (Ren et al., 2020). page on the Open Science Framework: As such, an effective intervention might involve consider- Study 1: https://osf.io/fszfw/?view_only=5d5a4c5ea3b ing individual differences and situational factors in combi- b4d5586fdc407a9cd2de0 nation, which requires large samples and clearly stated hy- Study 2: https://osf.io/w67gu/?view_only=d229135ad2d6 potheses of interactions between these variables. 4555b34c3146e65a8aad Overall, since embracing the opportunity to sit quietly in solitude has downstream regulatory benefits (e.g., Nguyen Submitted: January 09, 2021 PST, Accepted: December 21, 2021 et al., 2018; Pfeifer et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2020), it PST This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information. Collabra: Psychology 20 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude REFERENCES Alahmadi, S., Buttrick, N. R., Gilbert, D. T., Hardin, A. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, M., Westgate, E. C., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). You can E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of do it if you really try: The effects of motivation on attachment: A self-determination theory perspective thinking for pleasure. Motivation and Emotion, 41(5), on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9625-7 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997 Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, Larson, R. W., & Gillman, S. (1999). Transmission of 67(6), 3296–3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-862 emotions in the daily interactions of single-mother 4.1996.tb01915.x families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.2307/353880 Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(1). h Lay, J. C., Pauly, T., Graf, P., Mahmood, A., & ttps://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005 Hoppmann, C. A. (2020). Choosing solitude: Age differences in situational and affective correlates of Buttrick, N., Choi, H., Wilson, T. D., Oishi, S., Boker, S. solitude-seeking in midlife and older adulthood. M., Gilbert, D. T., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Cheong, W., Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Colic, V. M., Dalgar, I., Dogulu, C., Karabati, S., Kim, Sciences and Social Sciences, 75(3), 483–493. https://d E., Kneževic, G., Komiya, A., Laclé, C. O., Lage, C. A., oi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby044 Lazarevic, L. B., … Wilks, D. C. (2018). Cross-cultural consistency and relativity in the enjoyment of Nguyen, T. T., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Solitude thinking Versus doing. Journal of Personality and as an approach to affective self-regulation. Personality Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp000019 and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 92–106. https://d 8 oi.org/10.1177/0146167217733073 Chua, S. N., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination Nguyen, T. T., Werner, K. M., & Soenens, B. (2019). theory perspective on the role of autonomy in solitary Embracing me-time: Motivation for solitude during behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(5), transition to college. Motivation and Emotion, 43(4), 645–648. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.5.645-648 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-0975 9-9 Cramer, K. M., & Lake, R. P. (1998). The preference for solitude scale: Psychometric properties and factor Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y. Y., Prestwich, A., Quested, E., structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(2), Hancox, J. E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)001 Ryan, R. M., Lonsdale, C., & Williams, G. C. (2021). A 67-0 meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: effects on De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). motivation, health behavior, physical, and Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood- psychological health. Health Psychology Review, 15(2), creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity 214–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.171 model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.9 4.5.739 Pfeifer, E., Geyer, N., Storch, F., & Wittmann, M. (2019). “Just Think”—Students feel significantly more Galanaki, E. (2004). Are children able to distinguish relaxed, less aroused, and in a better mood after a among the concepts of aloneness, loneliness, and period of silence alone in a room. Psych, 1(1), solitude? International Journal of Behavioral 343–352. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010024 Development, 28(5), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01650250444000153 Pfeifer, E., & Wittmann, M. (2020). Waiting, thinking, and feeling: variations in the perception of time Hämäläinen, O. (1999). Some considerations on the during silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(April), capacity to be alone. Scandinavian Psychoanalytic 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00602 Review, 22(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0106230 1.1999.10592690 Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning Hammond, C. (2016). How being alone may be the key activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), to rest. BBC Radio 4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ma 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.52 gazine-37444982 Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in as a strategy to motivate others during an large surveys: Results from two population-based uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://do 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021711629417 i.org/10.1177/0164027504268574 Ren, D., Wesselmann, E. D., & van Beest, I. (2020). Seeking Solitude After Being Ostracized: A Replication and Beyond. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672 Collabra: Psychology 21 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Rodriguez, M., Bellet, B. W., & McNally, R. J. (2020). Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Reframing time spent alone: Reappraisal buffers the Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal associations between emotional effects of isolation. Cognitive Therapy and adolescent perceived degree and style of parental Research, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1060 prohibition and internalization and defiance. 8-020-10128-x Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 229–236. https://do i.org/10.1037/a0032972 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, Wang, Y. (2006). Culture and solitude: Meaning and development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. significance of being alone. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and designs for generalized causal Warttig, S. L., Forshaw, M. J., South, J., & White, A. K. Inference. In Experimental and quasi-experimental (2013). New, normative, English-sample data for the design for causual inference. Houghton Mifflin Short Form Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Journal of Company. Health Psychology, 18(12), 1617–1628. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1359105313508346 Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological Weinstein, N., Zougkou, K., & Paulmann, S. (2017). You control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self- “have” to hear this: Using tone of voice to motivate determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001 Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/F xhp0000502 Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to Westgate, E. C., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2017). support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, With a little help for our thoughts: Making it easier to 23(1), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9 think for pleasure. Emotion, 17(5), 828–839. https://d 142-7 oi.org/10.1037/emo0000278 Thomas, V., & Azmitia, M. (2019). Motivation matters: Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, Development and validation of the Motivation for D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., Brown, C. L., & Shaked, Solitude Scale – Short Form (MSS-SF). Journal of A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the Adolescence, 70(November), 33–42. https://doi.org/1 disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75–77. https://d 0.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.004 oi.org/10.1126/science.1250830 Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Capacity to be alone. The Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 416. of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483–501. http s://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x Collabra: Psychology 22 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude Appendix A STEP 1: SIGN-IN. Make sure participants sign-in their names when they enter the lab. • Open survey page. The first thing you see will be the Information letter. Turn on guided access. STEP 2: INFORMATION LETTER AND SURVEY 1. • Administer information letter and survey 1: “Here is the information letter. Please read this and if you agree to participate, please click “next” to fill out the first survey. You will be listening to the instruc- tion on the iPad. Just follow the instruction and let me know when you need me.” *Leave the room* Figure A1 STEP 3: VERBAL MANIPULATION delivered on IPAD st Participants come out the 1 time. At this time, collect par- ticipants’ belongings, including books, backpacks, electronic for the free-choice period. Make sure you give the instruction devices, and a watch if they have one on them. Ask them to re- before entering your Experimenter’s code and click next. peat the instructions back to you in their own words. • Start with the numbers of boxes of pencils that the sub- * Leave the room* jects have completed, separately for red and blue. • Then count the number of rows of pencils in the incom- plete boxes (Figure A1). STEP 6: FREE CHOICE INSTRUCTION: 15-minute SOLITUDE “So there will be another survey I will ask you to fill out, Buzz subjects after 15-minutes but before we move on, you will be alone again for 10 minutes. Wait for subjects to come out to notify you. Please remain in your seat and stay awake. This time you can take a few minutes to sit alone with yourself and rest. Or, you can occupy your time by sorting more pencils if you like. It nd doesn’t matter which of these two things you choose to do. The Participants come out the 2 time. At this time, give the purpose of this session is for you to spend the time you are instruction for the pencil-sorting task. Make sure you give the alone in the way that you prefer between the two activities you instruction before entering your Experimenter’s code and click have experienced in this session. So I ask that you not do any- next. thing else besides either sitting alone with yourself or sorting *Leave the room* pencils, and also not touch anything else in the room so the STEP 4: PENCIL SORTING TASK INSTRUCTION: room will be the same for the next participant. After 10 minutes “The next task is a pencil-sorting task. For this task, you will hear a signal again, and at that time, please fill out please take ONLY the blue and the red pencils out of this Survey Number 4. Do you have any questions about this part of bin, and sort them into two separate boxes. Make sure all the experiment?” pencils are put in the same direction and fit all the pencils *Experimenter left the room* in one row before you move on to the next row. There are several boxes here for you to fill in with pencils, Make sure you fill each box all the way to the top, THEN move on to the next box. Do this for a few minutes, then you will hear 10-minute FREE CHOICE another signal. When you hear the signal, go ahead and fin- Buzz subjects after 10-minutes ish the row that you are working on and then proceed to fill Wait for subjects to come out to notify you. out Survey Number 3. Do you have any questions about this part of the experiment?” *Leave the room* th Participants come out the 4 time. Count pencils in the boxes, including the ones that have been filled during the pen- cil-sorting period. Take all the time you need. 5-minute PENCIL SORTING STEP 7: DEBRIEFING Buzz subjects after 5-minutes Wait for subjects to come out to notify you. • Ask the participant the following questions: "What did you think about all the instructions for this study? Did you feel that you understood what you were asked to rd Participants come out the 3 time. Count pencils in the do and performed all the parts as instructed?" boxes. Take all the time you need. THEN, give the instruction Collabra: Psychology 23 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude • Do not forget the reminders! this study if you have any questions. There will be one "Please do not talk about this experiment with anyone more survey sent out at the end of today. It is very short else. We maintain confidentiality of your data. And there and takes only 3 minutes to complete. Please fill it out to are some contact persons listed on the SONA posting of receive full credits for the study." Collabra: Psychology 24 Alone With Our Thoughts: Investigation of Autonomy Supportive Framing as a Driver of Enjoyment During Quiet Time in Solitude SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Peer Review History Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/31629-alone-with-our-thoughts-investigation-of-autonomy- supportive-framing-as-a-driver-of-enjoyment-during-quiet-time-in-solitude/attachment/ 79369.docx?auth_token=dBsNYWSRUJlcAu47pyJy Supplemental Material Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/31629-alone-with-our-thoughts-investigation-of-autonomy- supportive-framing-as-a-driver-of-enjoyment-during-quiet-time-in-solitude/attachment/ 79370.docx?auth_token=dBsNYWSRUJlcAu47pyJy Collabra: Psychology
Collabra Psychology – University of California Press
Published: Jan 25, 2022
Keywords: just think; self-regulation; self-determination theory; autonomy; solitude
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.