A new study published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences examines three different types of social withdrawal and found that one of these species is associated with greater creativity in individuals.
When people choose to be alone, they often do so for three reasons: being shy, interacting with others, or enjoying time alone.
Traditionally, psychologists have described the three types as shyness, avoidance, and non-socialism.
The new study aims to find out if all three groups are associated with negative psychological outcomes.
Most of us tend to believe that loneliness is undesirable. Some studies have confirmed that excessive loneliness affects our overall health, but Dr. Julie Booker, author of the new study and a school at the Department of Psychology at Buffalo University in New York, had another view, In the type associated with social withdrawal
But unity is not always bad (motivational aspects)
"When people think about the cost associated with social withdrawal, they often take a developmental point of view," she says.
"During childhood and adolescence, the idea is always that if you take yourself out of the midst of your colleagues, you will be absent from positive interactions such as receiving social support, developing social skills, and other social benefits that you gain by interacting with your colleagues.
"This may be why there is such a focus on the negative effects of avoiding colleagues and withdrawing from their circles," adds Poker.
"Looking at motivational aspects, we need to understand why people withdraw to understand the risks and benefits associated with that," says Boker.
To test this, the research team asked 295 participants to fill out a series of questionnaires about their motivations for desiring, their creativity, their sensitivity to anxiety, their willingness to be depressed, their tendency to be aggressive, and the lack of pleasure about social activities.
The participants were adults aged 19 to 31 years, on average.
Boker and her colleagues evaluated the so-called behavioral activation systems (BAS) and behavioral inhibition systems (BIS).
The two systems (BAS, BIS) help both regulate avoidance behaviors or isolation.
A high score on the BAS scale means, for example, that the participant is classified (very true) as: "When I chase something I can handle (without restrictions)."
While the high score on the BIS means that a person takes into account statements such as "I feel very anxious or anxious when I think or know someone is angry with me" and are classified as "very true."
The research team used both BAS / BIS to distinguish between different types of social withdrawal.
Non-social people are the most creative
The study found that non-social or self-contained individuals were more creative.
According to the study authors, these findings provide (the first evidence of potential benefits) of self-containment and non-social.
By contrast, shyness and avoidance have been negatively associated with creativity, in the sense that the more shy or avoidable the human being is, the less creative he is.
Predicting the causes of this negative relationship, Booker says that "shy and avoidable individuals may be unable to use their time of isolation with happiness and productivity, perhaps because they are distracted by their negative perceptions and fears.
By contrast, young people (non-social) spend more time alone than others, but spend time with their peers. They are not anti-social, just do not interact with others, nor do they reject social calls from their friends. "
"Socialists may get enough interaction with their friends so that they can enjoy this isolation when they are alone. They can think creatively and create new ideas - like the artist in the studio or the academic in his office," she says.
"Over the years, social inequality has been characterized as a relatively dangerous type of social withdrawal, but with the new results associated with creativity, we now believe that social inequality can be better described as a useful form of social withdrawal," concludes Dr. Boker.
Source