In this research, we showed that solitude generally has a deactivation effect on people's affective experiences, decreasing both positive and negative high-arousal affects. In Study 1, we found that the deactivation effect occurred when people were alone, but not when they were with another person. Study 2 showed that this deactivation effect did not depend on whether or not the person was engaged in an activity such as reading when alone. In Study 3, high-arousal positive affect did not drop in a solitude condition in which participants specifically engaged in positive thinking or when they actively chose what to think about. Finally, in Study 4, we found that solitude could lead to relaxation and reduced stress when individuals actively chose to be alone. This research thus shed light on solitude effects in the past literature, and on people's experiences when alone and the different factors that moderate these effects.

The present research examined the role of university students' motivation for spending time alone in their adjustment to college life, as well as the parenting correlates of students' healthy motivation for solitude. Two studies were conducted on first-year college students in the United States (n = 147) and Canada (n = 223). In Study 1, data was collected at three different time points, separated by two-week intervals. In Study 2, data was collected at two different time points, separated by a month. The results revealed that, for those who reported perceiving lower social belonging, approaching solitary time for autonomous reasons was linked to greater selfesteem (Study 1), and greater sense of relatedness to others and lower loneliness (Study 2). These findings suggest that endorsing a healthy motivation for solitude is not necessarily indicative of social ill-being. Additionally, students' autonomous motivation for spending time alone was associated with having parents that are autonomy supportive and that promote a sense of independence.

There is a lively debate on the effects of social media use, shaped by self-reported measurements of social media use. However, selfreports have been shown to suffer from low accuracy compared to logged measures of social media use. Even though it is unclear how problematic that measurement error is for our inferences, many scholars call for the exclusive use of "objective" measures. But if measurement error is not systematic, self-reports will still be informative. In contrast, if there is systematic error, associations between social media use and other variables, including well-being, are likely biased. Here, we report an exploratory 5 day experience sampling study among 96 participants (435 observations) to understand factors that could relate to low accuracy. First, we asked what stable individual differences are related to low accuracy. Second, we explored what daily states relate to accuracy. Third, we explored whether accuracy relates to well-being. Although we did find evidence for a systematic tendency to overestimate social media use, neither individual differences nor daily states were related to that tendency. Accuracy was also unrelated to well-being. Our results suggest that blindly calling for objective measures foregoes a responsibility to understand measurement error in social media use first.

Concerns about the consequences of social media use on well-being has led to the practice of taking a brief hiatus from social media platforms, a practice known as “digital detoxing.” These brief “digital detoxes” are becoming increasingly popular in the hope that the newly found time, previously spent on social media, would be used for other, theoretically more rewarding, activities. In this paper, we test this proposition. Participants in three preregistered field experiments (ntot = 600) were randomly assigned to receiving each of two conditions on each of two different days: a normal-use day or an abstinence day. Outcomes (social relatedness, positive and negative affect, day satisfaction) were measured on each of the two evenings of the study. Results did not show that abstaining from social media has positive effects on daily well-being (in terms of social relatedness, positive and negative affect, day satisfaction) as suggested by the extant literature. Participants reported similar well-being on days when they used social media and days when they did not. Evidence indicated that abstinence from social media had no measurable positive effect on well-being, and some models showed significant deficits in social relatedness and satisfaction with one’s day. We discuss implications of the study of social media hiatus and the value of programmatic research grounded in preregistered experimental designs.

This multi-wave study examined the extent that both preference and motivation for time alone shapes ill-being during self-isolation. Individuals in the USA and the UK are self-isolating in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Different motivations may drive their self-isolation: some might see value in it (understood as the identified form of autonomous motivation), while others might feel forced into it by authorities or close others (family, friends, neighbourhoods, doctors; the external form of controlled motivation). People who typically prefer company will find themselves spending more time alone, and may experience ill-being uniformly, or as a function of their identified or external motivations for self-isolation. Self-isolation, therefore, offers a unique opportunity to distinguish two constructs coming from disparate literatures. This project examined preference and motivation (identified and external) for solitude, and tested their independent and interacting contributions to ill-being (loneliness, depression and anxiety during the time spent alone) across two weeks. Confirmatory hypotheses regarding preference and motivation were not supported by the data. A statistically significant effect of controlled motivation on change in ill-being was observed one week later, and preference predicted ill-being across two weeks. However, effect sizes for both were below our minimum threshold of interest.