Modern days present individuals with ever-growing possibilities for managing their social lives. Developments in computing, communication, and transportation, introduce novel channels for social interactions, alongside increased opportunities for spending time alone productively (e.g., Verduyn et al., 2021). The present investigation is focused on these basic social conditions (alone/with others), on the choice of being in these contexts, and on their joint (interactive) effect on well-being.
The tendency to form and maintain social bonds is considered a fundamental need (Kenrick et al., 2010; Maslow, 1943), expressed in humans from infancy and across the lifespan (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1973; House et al., 1988; Stevens & Fiske, 1995). Its fulfillment has positive effects on well-being (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Diener & Seligman, 2002; Myers, 2000; Reis et al., 2000), whereas dearth of social relations carries dire consequences such as depression and poor health (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; House et al., 1988).
Notwithstanding, much of the evidence associating social relations with subjective well-being (SWB) is based on general and static (i.e., stable status) estimations of the variables, such as in the association between one's marital status and general satisfaction with life (Myers, 2000). These findings are highly informative and of much value, but they do not necessarily reflect the effects embedded in the dynamics of everyday social interactions on experiential (i.e., episodic) SWB (Hudson et al., 2020). That is, knowing that solid social bonds contribute to general satisfaction with life does not inform about the association of momentary social interactions with momentary SWB, because these variables carry different meanings at the two levels of analysis (global vs. specific). Experiential subjective well-being (ESWB) reflects the mood and emotions that people experience in a given context (Hudson et al., 2020). Research indicates that it is only loosely related to measures of global well-being (Kim-Prieto et al., 2005). Moreover, static social relations are usually based on having prolonged, frequent contacts with a few highly liked individuals, whereas everyday social contacts are diverse, unpredictable, and often brief (Del Valle et al., 2007).
Using diary, day reconstruction, and experience sampling methods, research has started to explore the association of daily social interactions with ESWB. Nezlek et al. (2002) reported that ESWB gained by merely being more socially active, and more so by having rewarding interactions. A similar conclusion was reached by Larson et al. (1985) involving a population of retired adults. More recently, Sandstrom and Dunn (2014) reported greater happiness and well-being on days with many social interactions, and Wilt and Revelle (2019) associated social interactions with energic arousal. Sun et al. (2020) reached a similar conclusion, connecting the sheer quantity of social interactions with momentary well-being (retrieved from self-reports and proxy reports).
However, other studies have indicated that social interactions do not always bring about greater ESWB. Hudson et al. (2020) emphasized that different interaction contexts yield different experiences (see also Lucas & Dyrenforth, 2006). Similarly, in Kahneman et al. (2004), social interactions were both among the most likable daily activities (e.g., intimate relations), but also among the least likable activities (e.g., caring for one's children), indicating that social contacts carry a mixed bag of effects. Uziel et al. (2020) found no direct relation between momentary social context (alone/’with others’) and reported happiness, whereas Rook (1984) highlighted potential destructive effects of negative daily contacts on ESWB (see also Rafaeli et al., 2008). Taken together, research focusing on real-life experiences shows that social interactions may be conducive to ESWB, but the experience is subjected to substantial variations that need to be better understood.
Does time alone contribute systematically to well-being? Recent years have seen a surge in research on solitude, and with it in findings associating solitude to well-being (Coplan & Bowker, 2014). Research often reports that solitude carries detrimental effects on well-being. For example, Larson (1990) reported that the experience of solitude in daily life is one of loneliness and passivity and that spending extended time alone is a marker of poor adjustment. Matias et al. (2011) reported increased levels of stress hormones when alone, whereas Teppers et al. (2013) found that traits reflecting emotional stability were associated with an aversion of aloneness (see also Lay et al., 2018; Uziel, 2016). Behaviorally, Wilson et al. (2014) reported that people find being alone extremely aversive and would rather keep themselves occupied in self-harming (yet stimulating) activities. Notwithstanding, research also documents desired effects for solitude, stressing its contribution to well-being. Time alone arises in these studies as an opportunity to relax, regulate emotions, and reflect on one's life, thus enhancing and consolidating one’s selfhood (Coplan & Bowker, 2014; Long & Averill, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2018; Pauly et al., 2018; Uziel, 2021). The factors that determine the nature of the alone experience are the focus of emerging yet still indecisive research (Coplan et al., 2019; Lay et al., 2018; Uziel et al., 2020).
Real-life data that compares the alone context with being with others indicates that, on average, the latter is more conducive to ESWB. For example, in Kahneman et al. (2004), being alone was associated with lower positive affect (but not higher negative affect) compared with social activities involving other people. Similar results were reported in Srivastava (2008) using an experience-sampling method, in Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2014) among primary school students, and by Choi et al. (2017) and Hudson et al. (2020) on adult samples. Yet, given the variability of experiences in both conditions, this question needs to be further explored by addressing potential moderators, which may convey a more complete picture of the dynamics taking place.
As potential moderators of the effects of daily social interactions, research has frequently explored objective parameters of the setting (e.g., number of other people, partner identity, weekday). Notwithstanding, these factors oftentimes do not convey systematic variations in experience. For example, as emerging from the findings of Kahneman et al. (2004) and Epley and Schroeder (2014), the closeness of one's interaction partner (e.g., your child vs. a stranger in the subway) sometimes carries unexpected effects on ESWB and is therefore not a dependable indicator.
A factor that has not attracted much attention but holds a potential to play an important role as a moderator is whether the setting is elected or imposed. That is, whether the person is in social interaction (or alone) by personal choice or because of external circumstances. Research involving real-life data has addressed the question of choice with only a handful of studies, whereas lab-based experimental data is almost entirely focused on imposed social settings. Tentative evidence for the role of elected social contacts on ESWB comes from an experience sampling study by O'Connor and Rosenblood (1996). Their research found that in 66% of the sampling points, participants were in a social condition (alone/with others) of their preference (and thus, in 34% they were in a non-elected context). Being in an elected social condition predicted the likelihood of remaining in this setting (thus implying better ESWB). Similar findings were reported in Hall (2017) using a larger and more diverse sample (here, 53% of participants’ reports indicated being in a non-elected setting). In one of the only direct explorations of the effect of elected social contexts on ESWB, Hall and Merolla (2020) reported that on days in which participants felt that they had a choice about how to spend their social time they reported higher life satisfaction. Similarly, Nezlek (2001) reported that psychological adjustment was higher on days when participants' socializing plans were realized. Taken together, initial evidence indicates that choice is a substantial moderator of the effect of social interactions on ESWB, alongside findings suggesting that it plays a key role in the alone experience as well (Coplan et al., 2019; Lay et al., 2018). However, additional research is needed, focusing on people’s experiences during (i.e., beyond their general retrospection about) their social interactions and during their time alone—goals that the present investigation aims to achieve.
Moreover, existing research does not address the question of whether choice carries a different impact on well-being when one chooses to be alone versus when one chooses to be with others—a question at the core of the present investigation. Reason has it that volition plays a stronger effect in the 'with others' context. Research indicates that relative to alone experiences, social interactions are highly arousing (Bond & Titus, 1983; Zajonc, 1965), and mentally demanding (Baron, 1986; Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001; Uziel & Baumeister, 2012). Self-presentational concerns cause events happening with others to carry greater weight (Baumeister, 1982). As a result, responses to social presence are known to be either highly facilitative or highly inhibitive compared to alone settings (Uziel, 2007). More so, recent experimental findings have indicated that events taking place during social interactions are amplified and perceived to be stronger, for better or worse (Boothby et al., 2014; Steinmetz et al., 2016). These characteristics set the stage for more extreme reactions to similar processes when they occur in a 'with others' context than in an alone context. Taken together, choice is likely to affect well-being in both settings, alone and 'with others', but its effect will be more consequential under the 'with others' condition.
The Present Research
We report two studies that used different methods to test our prediction that choice (specifically, perceived choice) has a more substantial impact on ESWB in a ‘with others’ context than in an alone context. Study 1 was an experiment that sought to control for exogenous variables. Study 2, our main study, applied an experience-sampling method to test our prediction in real-life dynamics.
Statistical Power and Open Science Declaration
Sample size considerations and statistical power calculations are reported at the introduction of each study. All materialsFootnote 1, data, and code are posted at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tukwe/