Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Apr 11;66(5):717–728. doi: 10.1111/sjop.13116

Caring Too Much or Too Little? Relations Among Motivations for Social Withdrawal, Empathy, and Prosociality in Emerging Adulthood

Rachel Scott 1,✉, Kristie L Poole 1, Louis A Schmidt 1, Raha Hassan 2
PMCID: PMC12423741  PMID: 40216561

ABSTRACT

Most previous work examining relations between social withdrawal and social cognition has focused primarily on empathy‐related behaviors in shy children. However, there are different underlying reasons to withdraw from social interactions, which may be differentially related to aspects of social cognition throughout the lifespan. The present study investigated relations among the different motivations for social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, avoidance, and unsociability) and indices of social cognition, including cognitive (i.e., perspective taking) and affective (i.e., empathic concern and personal distress) empathy, and prosocial behavior during emerging adulthood. Participants included 588 Canadian undergraduate students (M age = 18.91 years; 80% female), who completed self‐report questionnaires assessing social withdrawal and empathy, and participated in the Dictator Game to assess sharing behavior. A series of multiple linear regressions revealed that the different motivations for social withdrawal were differentially associated with the three components of empathy and prosocial behavior. Shyness was positively associated with empathic concern and personal distress, whereas avoidance was negatively associated with empathic concern, perspective taking, and prosocial behavior. Unsociability was positively associated with perspective taking and negatively associated with personal distress. These findings have implications for our understanding of the different motivations for social withdrawal, and how each motivation influences how individuals connect with, relate to, and understand others.

Keywords: social withdrawal, shyness, unsociability, social avoidance, empathy, prosocial behavior

Summary.

  • Shyness was positively correlated with empathic concern and personal distress

  • Unsociability was negatively correlated with personal distress and positively correlated with perspective taking

  • Avoidance was negatively correlated with empathic concern, perspective taking, and prosocial behavior

  • The three motivations for social withdrawal—shyness, avoidance, and unsociability—each exhibit different patterns of empathy and prosocial behavior in emerging adults.

Amidst the increasingly complex and novel social contexts faced by emerging adults, the extent of an individual's social engagement has important implications for shaping their ability to connect with others, the quality of their interpersonal relationships, and their overall well‐being (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018). While solitude offers benefits for self‐reflection, identity exploration, and personal growth (Thomas 2023)—all of which are particularly important for working through the developmental tasks of emerging adulthood—spending too much time alone can become problematic and carries risks for maladjustment (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Coplan et al. 2021; Nelson and Millett 2021; Rubin et al. 2009). In light of heightened expectations to autonomously navigate novel social contexts and the importance of developing meaningful social connections during emerging adulthood (Arnett 2000), those who struggle to involve themselves socially may be at a developmental disadvantage.

Social withdrawal is considered an “umbrella construct” referring to the behavioral tendency to consistently remove oneself from interactions with both familiar and unfamiliar peers (Rubin et al. 2009). Approach‐avoidance models have been particularly useful for understanding the processes motivating an individual's tendency to engage in, or withdraw from, social contexts (Asendorpf 1990). Based on combinations of social approach and avoidance motivations, three unique “subtypes” of self‐imposed social withdrawal have been identified that lead people to engage in fewer interactions with others for different reasons (Asendorpf 1990; Nelson 2013). According to this account, shyness arises from an approach‐avoidance conflict, such that shy individuals simultaneously experience a desire to interact with others (i.e., high social approach motivation) along with feelings of anxiety in response to social novelty or perceived social evaluation (i.e., high social avoidance motivation). Avoidance is thought to reflect a lack of interest and dislike toward social contexts (i.e., low social approach motivation) accompanied by a desire to avoid social interaction due to feelings of antipathy or anxiety (i.e., high social avoidance motivation) (Asendorpf 1990; Coplan and Armer 2007). Avoidant individuals, unlike their shy counterparts, are not only less inclined to initiate interactions with others, but also actively circumvent opportunities to engage with their peers (e.g., overtly turn down social requests) (Coplan et al. 2014). Finally, unsociability represents a non‐fearful preference for solitude such that unsociable individuals are not uncomfortable or anxious in the presence of others (i.e., low social avoidance motivation), but are simply less interested in initiating social interactions and tend to seek out solitude as they enjoy and value their time alone (i.e., low social approach motivation) (Coplan et al. 2015; Nguyen et al. 2018). It is important to differentiate between the forms of social withdrawal given that the risks associated with spending too much time alone differ depending on an individual's underlying social motivations (Nelson and Millett 2021).

The costs of solitude are often assumed to be greatest during childhood and adolescence given the significance of peer interactions for healthy socio‐emotional development (Nelson and Millett 2021). As such, considerable work has investigated how these distinct motivations for withdrawal are differentially associated with indices of socio‐emotional functioning and well‐being in childhood and adolescence. However, socially withdrawn emerging adults face similar challenges to withdrawn youths, as well as challenges unique to emerging adulthood such as the restructuring of social networks, the development of more intimate relationships, gaining independence from their parents, and transitioning to higher education or starting careers (Arnett 2000). Given the importance of adaptive social functioning for positive outcomes during emerging adulthood, this period of development represents a particularly crucial time for the study of social withdrawal.

Limited work on social withdrawal in emerging adulthood suggests that both shy and avoidant emerging adults may be particularly at risk for maladjustment (Closson et al. 2022), with avoidant emerging adults appearing to suffer to an even greater extent than their shy counterparts (Bowker and Raja 2011; Clifford and Nelson 2019; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013). Both shy and avoidant emerging adults experience higher levels of internalizing problems (Closson et al. 2019; Nelson 2013; Sette et al. 2023) and difficulties regulating their emotions relative to their unsociable and non‐withdrawn peers. Shyness and avoidance have also both been linked to poor relational outcomes, reporting lower quality relationships with—and receiving less social support from—their parents, best friends, and romantic partners (Closson et al. 2022; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013). However, avoidant emerging adults tend to have even poorer relationships with their parents relative to shy individuals (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013). Avoidant individuals also exhibit higher levels of aggression and externalizing problems relative to their shy counterparts (Clifford et al. 2022; Nelson et al. 2016). Although shyness has also been linked with aggression (Bowker et al. 2017; Clifford et al. 2022), avoidant individuals aggress toward others out of anger, whereas shy individuals may behave aggressively when overwhelmed by feelings of anxiety (Bowker et al. 2017). Additionally, shy individuals are significantly more concerned with others, showing heightened social comparisons and fears of negative evaluation, whereas those who are socially avoidant display markedly less concern toward others and how they are viewed by them (i.e., low social comparisons and fears of negative evaluation; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013).

In contrast, unsociable individuals are not hindered by strong avoidance motivations and appear to fare quite well during their emerging adult years (Closson et al. 2022). Although unsociability has been linked with depressive symptomology in some samples (Nelson 2013), unsociable emerging adults rarely differ from their non‐withdrawn peers on indices of maladjustment (i.e., internalizing, externalizing, and relational problems), suggesting it to be a relatively benign form of social withdrawal (Nelson and Millett 2021). Despite spending more time alone (Coplan et al. 2021) and having fewer peers overall (Coplan et al. 2019), unsociable emerging adults cultivate higher quality relationships with others (Barry et al. 2013; Closson et al. 2022; Nelson 2013) and are thought to obtain “just enough” practice of important social skills (Bowker and Raja 2011; Nelson and Millett 2021). Unsociability is not only more benign but may be increasingly beneficial during emerging adulthood, given that spending time alone becomes more socially appropriate and has a greater propensity toward promoting positive development (Coplan et al. 2019; Dixon 2020; Long and Averill 2003; Nguyen et al. 2018; Thomas and Azmitia 2019). In line with this notion, unsociable emerging adults tend to experience more positive outcomes relative to the other forms of social withdrawal, including higher levels of happiness, self‐worth, and existential well‐being (Bowker et al. 2017; Closson et al. 2022; Galanaki et al. 2023).

Taken together, this collection of studies suggests that the different forms of social withdrawal are associated with different risk and resiliency factors during emerging adulthood, with those who have high social avoidance motivations being particularly at risk for interpersonal and mental health difficulties. Given that emerging adulthood is a time in which social interactions and relationships become particularly crucial for positive outcomes, those who experience greater difficulties developing and maintaining connections with others may also struggle more in coping with the social demands and expectations of this developmental period (Nelson and Millett 2021). As such, social‐cognitive factors, such as empathy and prosociality, are important to examine in relation to social withdrawal as they may have implications for how socially withdrawn individuals connect with—and relate to—others.

Empathy is crucial for one's ability to connect with others and is important for facilitating positive social interactions, as well as developing and maintaining meaningful relationships (Hoffman 2000). It is typically conceptualized as the ability to understand and vicariously experience another individual's perspective and/or emotional state, either through observation or imagination (Davis 1983; De Vignemont and Singer 2006). Empathy is considered a multidimensional construct, consisting of both cognitive and affective components (Decety and Jackson 2004; Shamay‐Tsoory et al. 2009). Cognitive empathy, or perspective taking, involves the ability to adopt another individual's perspective to understand their thoughts, feelings, and what it is like to be in their situation. Affective empathy, on the other hand, consists of two components and involves vicariously experiencing another individual's emotions. Empathic concern leads one to feel compassion or sympathy toward the person in need, while personal distress leads to more self‐oriented feelings of distress and unease in response to their suffering (De Vignemont and Singer 2006). Empathy not only facilitates positive interpersonal interactions but is also thought to be an important motivator of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behaviors are defined as voluntary and intentional actions carried out with the purpose of benefitting others (i.e., helping, cooperating, comforting, sharing, or volunteering; Eisenberg et al. 2015). Both understanding the needs of other's (i.e., perspective taking) and experiencing sympathy for them (i.e., empathic concern) are thought to be important for motivating prosocial responses out of concern for another individual's well‐being and a desire to reduce their distress (Batson et al. 1991; Davis 1983; Hoffman 2000). In contrast, personal distress is a more self‐focused and aversive response that occurs when others' distress becomes emotionally overwhelming, and typically results in motivations to reduce one's own negative emotions (Batson et al. 1991). Perspective taking abilities play an important role in shifting focus from one's own emotional state (i.e., personal distress) to the other individual's perspective and concern for their emotional state (i.e., empathic concern) by drawing on one's self‐regulatory abilities. As such, individual differences in emotionality and emotion regulation are implicated in both the extent to which one experiences empathic concern and personal distress, in addition to how well they can regulate their emotional arousal to engage in prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al. 1996).

Empathy and prosociality play an important role in emerging adults' social and emotional well‐being, as well as in aiding them to successfully navigate various life transitions and changes in their social networks. Because empathy enables one to better understand the diverse perspectives and emotions of others more effectively, as well as gauge how they may feel during an interaction (Ringwald and Wright 2021), it likely supports more positive social relationships and the integration into novel social environments (Grühn et al. 2008; Litt et al. 2020). Further, empathy also plays an important role in the quality of one's relationships as it helps foster emotional connectedness, aids in conflict resolution, and leads to greater levels of social support (Allemand et al. 2015; McCullough et al. 1997; Ringwald and Wright 2021). Behaving in a prosocial manner is also important for promoting positive social experiences and leads to more adaptive interpersonal functioning (Chávez et al. 2022; Eisenberg et al. 1996; Van Willigen 2000; Zuffianò et al. 2016). As such, the differential interpersonal outcomes experienced by the subtypes of withdrawal during emerging adulthood (e.g., relationship quality and social support) may be partially influenced by differences in their abilities to empathize with others and tendencies to behave prosocially.

Despite these links, relatively few studies have examined the relations among different forms of social withdrawal, empathy, and prosocial behavior during emerging adulthood, particularly within a single study. Shyness has been negatively associated with prosocial behavior (Fraser 2012; Guo et al. 2018), perspective taking, and empathic concern (Guo et al. 2018) in emerging adulthood; however, other motivations for withdrawal were not included in their analyses. To the best of our knowledge, only one study has explicitly examined the relations between all three subtypes and one aspect of empathy—empathic concern—during emerging adulthood (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018). This study found that avoidant emerging adults exhibited lower levels of empathic concern relative to their shy, unsociable, and non‐withdrawn peers (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018). However, Jorgensen and Nelson did not examine how the different forms of social withdrawal were related to other aspects of empathy or prosocial behavior.

1. The Present Study

In light of the aforementioned gaps in the literature, the goal of the present study was to investigate whether the different motivations for social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, unsociability, avoidance) were differentially related to cognitive and affective empathy, as well as prosocial behavior during emerging adulthood.

Based on prior literature, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1

Shyness will be positively associated with personal distress and empathic concern, given the relations between shyness, emotional reactivity, and emotional dysregulation (Davis 1983 ), and shy individuals' concern for others and desire for social affiliation (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018 ).

Hypothesis 2

Shyness will be negatively associated with prosocial behavior, given that higher emotional reactivity and poor emotion regulation confer increased risk for personal distress, which may inhibit prosocial responding (Eisenberg et al. 1996 ).

Hypothesis 3

Avoidance will be positively associated with personal distress, given the relations between avoidance, emotional reactivity, and emotional dysregulation (Davis 1983 ; Nelson 2013 ).

Hypothesis 4

Avoidance will be negatively associated with empathic concern, given that avoidant individuals appear relatively less concerned with those in their social environment and exhibit low social affiliative motivations, higher antisocial tendencies, and poorer relationships with others (Clifford et al. 2022 ; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018 ; Nelson et al. 2016 ). Relatedly, avoidance will be negatively associated with prosocial behavior, given previously reported positive relations between avoidance and emotional dysregulation and the important role of empathic concern in shaping inclinations toward helping others (Eisenberg et al. 1996 ).

Hypothesis 5

Unsociability will be negatively associated with personal distress, given that these individuals are less emotionally reactive and have strong emotion regulation abilities (Eisenberg et al. 1996 ; Nelson 2013 ).

Hypothesis 6

Unsociability will be positively associated with perspective taking, given that unsociable individuals are intrinsically drawn to spending time alone and engage in more constructive activities such as self‐reflection (Bowker et al. 2017 ; Coplan et al. 2021 ), which facilitates the development of socioemotional skills including emotion regulation and perspective taking (Dixon 2020 ; Long and Averill 2003 ; Nguyen et al. 2019 ; Thomas and Azmitia 2019 ).

2. Method

2.1. Sample

Participants included 588 undergraduate students (M age = 18.91 years, SDage = 1.99 years). A total of 113 participants identified as male, 470 as female, and 5 preferred not to answer. Participants identified their race as Asian (41%), White (30%), Middle Eastern (7%), African American (2%), Hispanic (1%), Other (17%), or preferred not to answer (2%). Participants were recruited from introductory psychology undergraduate courses at McMaster University, where most participants (85.7%) were first‐year students.

2.2. Procedure

Participants completed a series of questionnaires electronically using LimeSurvey. Participants provided informed consent and received partial course credit for their participation. All procedures were approved by the McMaster University Research Ethics Board.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Social Withdrawal

The Social Preference Scale (SPS) is a 20‐item self‐report measure used to assess an individual's preference for social interaction and solitude. The SPS is a revised version of the Child Social Preference Scale (CSPS; Coplan et al. 2004) for use with emerging adults (Bowker et al. 2017; Nelson 2013). The SPS consists of four subscales—shyness, unsociability, avoidance, and isolation—which assess the different motivations for social withdrawal and isolation by others. We were particularly interested in the empathic and social‐cognitive functioning of individuals who are intrinsically motivated to spend time alone, rather than instances wherein solitude is externally imposed (e.g., peer exclusion or rejection). Thus, we focused our analyses on the shyness (6 items), unsociability (4 items), and avoidance (6 items) subscales and did not use the isolation subscale in the present study. A sample item for the shyness subscale includes: “I'd like to hang out with other people, but I'm sometimes nervous too.” A sample item for the avoidance subscale includes “I don't really like being with other people and prefer being alone.” A sample item for the unsociability subscale includes “I don't have a strong need to be with other people.” Participants rated their agreement with items on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), where higher values indicated higher levels of social withdrawal. Each subscale had good internal consistency in our sample: shyness (α = 0.90), avoidance (α = 0.81), and unsociability (α = 0.76).

In the present study, the different motivations for social withdrawal were conceptualized as three continuous dimensions—shyness, avoidance, and unsociability—rather than as discrete categorical subtypes. Historically, many studies have examined social withdrawal motivations using variable‐oriented methods, which treat these constructs as continuous traits despite referring to them as “subtypes” (e.g., Bowker and Raja 2011; Closson et al. 2019; Coplan et al. 2004; Galanaki et al. 2023). As such, our use of the term “subtypes” is in reference to these traditionally conceptualized dimensions, which are based on the unique combination of approach‐avoidance tendencies associated with each form of social withdrawal. Recent advances in the field have facilitated the use of person‐oriented approaches (e.g., latent profile analysis) to empirically derive distinct subtype groupings based on shared withdrawal profiles (e.g., Closson et al. 2022; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013; Sette et al. 2023), rather than differentiating them based on the individual personality traits representative of their underlying approach‐avoidance motivations. We acknowledge that a person‐oriented approach can offer additional insights into the natural clustering of social withdrawal characteristics; however, we chose a regression‐based analysis because it allows for the examination of continuous individual differences within each of the personality dimensions that underlie the different forms of social withdrawal. This approach enables us to assess how specific traits, rather than profiles of withdrawal, relate to different facets of empathy and prosocial behavior.

2.3.2. Empathy

Participants completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a widely used self‐report measure of dispositional empathy (Davis 1980). Subscales of interest included perspective taking (7 items), empathic concern (7 items), and personal distress (7 items). The perspective taking subscale assesses cognitive empathy, whereas the empathic concern and personal distress subscales assess the affective component of empathy. The perspective taking subscale assesses one's inclination to adopt the point of view of others and understand what they are thinking or feeling. A sample item includes “When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to ‘put myself in his shoes’ for a while.” The empathic concern subscale measures the extent to which an individual experiences other‐oriented feelings of sympathy and compassion toward someone in need. A sample item includes “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.” The personal distress subscale assesses the degree to which individuals experience self‐oriented feelings of distress and unease in response to the suffering of others. A sample item includes: “I tend to lose control during emergencies.” Participants were asked to rate how well each item describes them on a 5‐point scale ranging from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well). Higher scores on each scale indicate greater levels of empathy. Each subscale had good internal consistency in our sample: perspective taking (α = 0.78), empathic concern (α = 0.75), and personal distress (α = 0.72).

2.3.3. Prosocial Behavior

Sharing behavior was assessed using the Dictator Game, a well‐established task used to measure generosity (Forsythe et al. 1994). During this task, participants were told they received 10 tickets, where each was worth one entry into a draw for a $50 gift certificate. Participants were asked to choose how many tickets to allocate between themselves and another anonymous participant. They were told their decision would be confidential. Using an electronic form, the participant chose the number of tickets (0–10) that they wished to share with the other participant.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We performed a series of four multiple linear regressions to examine how social withdrawal tendencies (i.e., shyness, avoidance, and unsociability) were related to the different components of empathy and prosocial behavior. To account for the contribution of each type of social withdrawal, each subscale was entered simultaneously in the regression analysis. Sex and age were included as covariates. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 24.0, with significance levels set at α = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

The descriptive statistics and correlations for the primary measures used in the study are displayed in Table 1. Social withdrawal motivations were each positively correlated with each other. As well, shyness was positively correlated with personal distress, unsociability was positively correlated with perspective taking, and avoidance was negatively correlated with both empathic concern and sharing behavior. Perspective taking was positively correlated with empathic concern and sharing behavior. Empathic concern was positively correlated with personal distress and sharing behavior.

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for main study measures.

2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean (SD) Range Skew Kurtosis
1. Shyness 0.39** 0.42** 0.03 0.08 0.30** −0.00 3.13 (0.95) 1.00–5.00 −0.16 −0.69
2. Unsociability — 0.54** 0.10* 0.03 −0.00 −0.01 3.50 (0.81) 1.00–5.00 −0.24 −0.04
3. Avoidance — −0.03 −0.12** 0.04 −0.09* 2.55 (0.66) 1.00–5.00 0.41 0.68
4. Perspective Taking — 0.44** −0.05 0.11** 17.74 (4.78) 2.00–28.00 −0.10 −0.10
5. Empathic Concern — 0.14** 0.13** 19.94 (4.47) 6.00–28.00 −0.44 −0.09
6. Personal Distress — 0.05 12.49 (4.52) 0.00–28.00 −0.01 0.20
7. Sharing Behavior — 7.68 (2.95) 0.00–10.00 −0.98 −0.16
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation. * p < 0.5.

**

p < 0.001.

3.2. Main Findings

3.2.1. Perspective Taking

The full model explained a significant amount of the variance in perspective taking, F(5, 563) = 2.609, p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.023. As shown in Table 2, unsociability positively predicted perspective taking (B = 0.92, p = 0.002), whereas avoidance negatively predicted perspective taking (B = −1.01, p = 0.007). Shyness was not related to perspective taking.

TABLE 2.

Summary of regression analyses for social withdrawal tendencies predicting facets of empathy.

B SE p
Perspective taking
Shyness 0.11 0.24 0.640
Unsociability 0.92 0.30 0.002
Avoidance −1.01 0.37 0.007
Sex −0.27 0.51 0.594
Age 0.08 0.10 0.436
Empathic concern
Shyness 0.48 0.22 0.029
Unsociability 0.42 0.27 0.121
Avoidance −1.44 0.34 < 0.001
Sex −2.61 0.46 < 0.001
Age 0.15 0.09 0.096
Personal distress
Shyness 1.63 0.21 < 0.001
Unsociability −0.79 0.27 0.003
Avoidance −0.12 0.33 0.708
Sex −1.61 0.46 < 0.001
Age −0.10 0.09 0.267
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: B, unstandardized beta; SE, standard error.

3.2.2. Empathic Concern

The full model explained a significant amount of the variance in empathic concern, F(5, 563) = 11.608, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.093. As shown in Table 2, shyness was positively related to empathic concern (B = 0.48, p = 0.03), whereas avoidance was negatively related to empathic concern (B = −1.44, p < 0.001). Unsociability was not related to empathic concern.

3.2.3. Personal Distress

The full model explained a significant amount of the variance in personal distress, F(5, 563) = 17.430, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.134. As shown in Table 2, shyness was positively related to personal distress (B = 1.63, p < 0.001), whereas unsociability was negatively related to personal distress (B = −0.79, p = 0.003). Avoidance was unrelated to personal distress.

3.2.4. Prosocial Behavior

The full model explained a significant amount of the variance in prosocial behavior, F(5, 557) = 2.647, p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.023. As shown in Table 3, avoidance was negatively associated prosocial behavior (B = −0.56, p = 0.02). Shyness and unsociability were unrelated to prosocial behavior.

TABLE 3.

Summary of regression analysis for social withdrawal tendencies predicting prosocial behavior.

B SE p
Prosocial behavior
Shyness 0.05 0.15 0.750
Unsociability 0.13 0.19 0.498
Avoidance −0.56 0.23 0.017
Sex −0.84 0.32 0.009
Age 0.01 0.06 0.908
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: B, unstandardized beta; SE, standard error.

4. Discussion

The goal of the present study was to investigate the relations among different motivations for social withdrawal and aspects of social‐cognition relevant to understanding how individuals connect with, and relate to, others during the socially demanding life stage of emerging adulthood. More specifically, this study replicated and extended existing work by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the empathic functioning associated with the different motivations for social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, avoidance, and unsociability) through examining how each is related to dispositional measures of both cognitive (i.e., perspective taking) and affective (i.e., personal distress and empathic concern) empathy, as well as a common form of prosocial behavior (i.e., sharing). We discuss the findings for each social withdrawal motivation below in turn.

4.1. Shyness

Consistent with our hypotheses and previous work, we found that shyness was positively associated with both empathic concern and personal distress (Davis 1983; Guo et al. 2018; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018). Specifically, shyer individuals reported higher levels of empathic concern, potentially reflecting heightened emotional responsiveness and feelings of sympathy in response to others' distress, as well as higher levels of personal distress, suggesting a greater likelihood of becoming overwhelmed by their own aversive emotions that arise in response to others' distress. This pattern of findings can be interpreted within the context of previous theoretical models noting that individual differences in emotionality and emotional regulation are implicated in the extent to which an individual experiences empathic concern and personal distress (Eisenberg et al. 1996). According to this model, individuals with a predisposition toward experiencing their emotions—particularly negative ones—more intensely (i.e., high emotional reactivity) would be more likely to experience both higher empathic concern and higher personal distress because they are more sensitive to the vicariously induced emotions of the other individual and feel them to a greater extent (Davis 1983; Eisenberg et al. 1994). People experience higher personal distress when they become empathetically over‐aroused and are unable to regulate their emotional arousal within a tolerable range, which, in turn, can inhibit their ability to respond and effectively act on their feelings of empathic concern (Eisenberg et al. 1994, 1996). Given that shy individuals are temperamentally predisposed toward emotional reactivity (Eisenberg et al. 1995) and have difficulties with emotional regulation (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013), this suggests they would be more likely to experience both higher empathic concern and personal distress as observed. Indeed, much of the literature surrounding these relations suggests that shyer individuals, who are more anxious within social contexts (Eisenberg et al. 1995; Schmidt et al. 1997; Theall‐Honey and Schmidt 2006), likely experience heightened personal distress because they are more emotionally affected by both the social saliency (Kagan et al. 1987), as well as the negative emotions (Eisenberg et al. 1994), involved in situations requiring empathy or a prosocial response. Additionally, despite failing to replicate the negative relation between shyness and empathic concern found by Guo et al. (2018), the positive relation observed in our study aligns well with findings revealing shy emerging adults are more concerned with and attuned to the opinions and needs of others (Closson et al. 2019; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Miller 1995; Nelson 2013). It is possible that shy individuals have higher levels of empathic concern because of their heightened sensitivity toward social cues and desire to affiliate with others (Auyeung and Alden 2020; Buunk and Gibbons 2006; LoBue and Pérez‐Edgar 2014; Pickett et al. 2004). Inconsistencies between findings may be accounted for by differences in shyness expressed among Eastern and Western cultures, but further empirical work is necessary to support this speculation (Kong et al. 2024).

Despite the framework described above, contrary to our expectations, we did not find that shyness was negatively associated with prosocial behavior; instead, shyness was unrelated to sharing. This could be due to the nature of prosocial behavior measured. The Dictator Game assesses sharing in an anonymous, low‐stakes environment, and does not involve direct social interaction nor the distressing emotions more commonly associated with other forms of prosocial behavior such as instrumental helping or comforting behavior (Forsythe et al. 1994). Thus, it makes sense that shyness was unrelated to this form of prosocial behavior as shy individuals likely experience less arousal within this context, allowing them to act on their prosocial tendencies without the inhibiting effects of personal distress. In support of this idea, studies have reported a negative association between shyness and prosocial behavior using measures that encompass a variety of situations involving direct social interaction and/or distressing emotions (Fraser 2012; Guo et al. 2018). This interpretation is also consistent with work in childhood suggesting that shy children's failure to behave prosocially reflects a performance deficit attributed to high levels of personal distress, rather than a deficit in competence or ability to experience empathic concern (Kim and Han 2018; Zava et al. 2021).

4.2. Avoidance

Despite the many similarities observed between shyness and avoidance e.g., Coplan and Rubin (2010), the results of the present study add to the growing body of work revealing the nuanced differences between these two forms of social withdrawal (e.g., Clifford et al. 2022; Nelson 2013). Consistent with our hypotheses and previous work (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018), we found that avoidance was negatively associated with empathic concern and prosocial behavior; however, contrary to our expectations, avoidance was unrelated to personal distress. Although not part of our initial hypotheses, we also found a negative relation between avoidance and perspective taking. Given that perspective taking facilitates both empathic concern and prosocial responses, this finding is a logical extension of our results for avoidance and consistent with the literature on empathy (Eisenberg et al. 1994). Finally, despite the hypothesized positive relation, we found no association between avoidance and personal distress. This indicates that—despite being associated with high emotional reactivity and high levels of social anxiety (Zhu et al. 2021)—avoidance may not be characterized by heightened emotional distress in response to others' emotions. Instead, it may reflect a more general disengagement from both the cognitive and emotional aspects of social experiences. This idea is supported by studies showing that, despite having similar aversions to social contexts as those high in shyness, avoidant individuals do not share the same concern for others (i.e., low, rather than high social comparisons and fears of negative evaluation; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018). Indeed, those who show little concern over how others view them also engage in fewer prosocial activities and are less sensitive to others' feelings and needs (Jacobs et al. 2004).

Relative to their shy counterparts, avoidant individuals seem to experience the most adverse impacts on adjustment and are more strongly oriented away from others. These findings are particularly noteworthy as they suggest avoidant emerging adults may not only struggle to understand and consider others' perspectives, but are also less likely to feel sympathy and compassion for them or act in a socially beneficial manner, which has important implications for their social relationships Jorgensen and Nelson (2018); Waller et al. (2020). It is possible that due to relatively low social affiliative motivations, avoidant individuals engage in less behavior that is thought to signal social affiliation, such as prosocial behavior Godman et al. (2014); Waller and Wagner (2019). Relatively lower social cognition may contribute to the higher levels of externalizing problems observed in avoidant individuals, which can lead to further decreases in empathy Blair (2013); Clifford et al. (2022); Paz et al. (2021); Shechtman (2002). In support of this idea, avoidant emerging adults tend to engage in higher levels of maladaptive media use, which is not only associated with lower empathy, but has been found to lead to decreases in empathic concern and prosocial behavior (Anderson et al. 2010; Fraser et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2016). Avoidant individuals may therefore be at risk for more severe interpersonal difficulties that have cascading consequences for their formation and maintenance of social relationships throughout development Nelson and Millett (2021).

4.3. Unsociability

Compared to shyness and avoidance, unsociability is often thought of as either benign or potentially adaptive during the emerging adult years (Closson et al. 2022; Coplan et al. 2021; Galanaki et al. 2023). Consistent with this, we found unsociability was positively associated with perspective taking and negatively associated with personal distress. More specifically, unsociable emerging adults had higher perspective taking, suggesting they are more likely to understand and consider others' viewpoints, and lower levels of personal distress, indicating they are less likely to feel overwhelmed by others' emotional states. Although Jorgensen and Nelson (2018) found unsociable individuals to exhibit lower‐than‐average empathic concern, we found no significant relation between unsociability and empathic concern, which suggests that unsociability alone may not directly impact empathic concern. Overall, the findings add to the literature suggesting unsociable individuals obtain enough social experience to curtail the negative impacts of withdrawal on their empathic and prosocial development; however, further work is needed to resolve differences between findings. Although we also predicted unsociability would be positively associated with prosocial behavior, we found no significant relation between the two variables. Again, this may be due to the type of prosocial behavior measured, since one's tendency to donate is more strongly influenced by feelings of empathic concern (Kim and Kou 2014), rather than their ability to adopt others' perspectives or cope with their own distress. Given that unsociability was not associated with empathic concern, it follows that unsociability was not significantly associated with sharing behavior. To provide further evidence for this assertion, future studies are encouraged to include other measures of prosocial behavior (e.g., helping behaviors) that may be more strongly influenced by the different components of empathy.

This pattern of findings is consistent with the notion that unsociability is more adaptive during emerging adulthood relative to other forms of social withdrawal. Unsociable individuals are not hindered by poor regulation or high avoidance motivations (Nelson 2013; Sette et al. 2023), which may explain why they are not as likely to become overwhelmed by personal distress during emotionally provocative social situations. Additionally, because unsociable emerging adults make more constructive use of their time alone (Bowker et al. 2017; Galanaki et al. 2023), they may be more likely to participate in activities that contribute to the development of better emotional regulation and more well‐rounded empathic abilities. Indeed, given the importance of solitude for introspection and reflection (Dixon 2020; Nguyen et al. 2019), intentionally spending time alone has been found to foster the growth of one's emotional regulation abilities, thereby contributing to improved perspective taking (Eisenberg et al. 1996). Moreover, engaging in more productive solitary activities, such as reading narrative fiction (Djikic et al. 2013) or participating in self‐reflective activities (Gerace et al. 2017), has been associated with increased perspective taking.

These findings may partially explain why, despite spending less time with their peers (Coplan et al. 2021), unsociable emerging adults manage to cultivate stronger, higher quality relationships, even compared to their more sociable counterparts (Barry et al. 2013; Jorgensen and Nelson 2018; Nelson 2013). For instance, their reflective nature may enhance their ability to understand and consider others' perspectives, while their proficient emotion regulatory abilities may allow them to more easily cope with and navigate the emotions involved in different types of social situations, which could help them navigate complex social dynamics with greater ease and aid in their abilities to cultivate stronger, higher quality relationships.

4.4. Implications

The results of the present study reveal an important aspect through which social withdrawal may differentially impact the quality of one's social interactions and relationships depending on an individual's underlying motivations to withdraw. The transitions and instability characteristic of emerging adulthood often involve significant changes to the quality and quantity of emerging adults' social networks as they are exposed to more diverse and novel social environments (Nelson and Millett 2021). These transitions also require them to adapt to new social contexts and expectations, understand more diverse perspectives, and manage more complex and mature interactions with others that are more socially demanding and have significant implications for their long‐term outcomes (e.g., developing new relationships, resolving conflicts with roommates or landlords, etc.) (Arnett 2000). Empathy not only plays an important role in the quality of one's relationships by fostering emotional connectedness, aiding in conflict resolution, and encouraging greater levels of social support (Allemand et al. 2015; McCullough et al. 1997; Ringwald and Wright 2021), but supports integration into novel social environments (Grühn et al. 2008; Litt et al. 2020). Thus, these changes may be particularly challenging for individuals who struggle to connect with and understand the differing perspectives of others, such as individuals who are higher in avoidance (Nelson and Millett 2021). Further, engagement in prosocial behaviors has been associated with lower depressive symptoms and better interpersonal relationships, subjective well‐being, and life satisfaction among emerging adults, potentially buffering against the stress and challenges of this developmental period (Miles et al. 2021, 2022; Mason et al. 2019).

Given that other‐directed emotions like empathy influence motivations to approach or avoid others (Jorgensen and Nelson 2018), our findings also provide insights into social‐cognitive processes that may shape differences in the nature of avoidance motivations between those higher in shyness and those higher in avoidance. The negative relations between avoidance and empathy might suggest that avoidant individuals' tendencies to feel less sympathy for others and have difficulty understanding their perspectives may make social experiences less enjoyable or contribute to feelings of antipathy within social contexts. Conversely, shy individuals—who tend to exhibit higher empathy—may be overly focused on what their interaction partners might be thinking or feeling, which could contribute to increased feelings of anxiety and help sustain avoidance behaviors. These nuanced differences in social‐cognition highlight the importance of investigating the different forms of social withdrawal using more than just approach‐avoidance motivations given that socially withdrawn individuals sharing the same motivation may differ greatly in how they relate to others.

4.5. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The present study has several strengths, including the use of a relatively large sample size and assessment of multiple measures of social cognition during a socially demanding period of development. Although this work has important theoretical implications and provides a more direct, comprehensive understanding of the relations between empathy and social withdrawal during emerging adulthood than previously explored, the present study is not without its limitations. First, our study was cross‐sectional. The correlational and cross‐sectional nature of the study prevents any definitive conclusions regarding causality or directionality of the observed relations. While it is likely that the characteristics of each form of withdrawal differentially influence the development and/or expression of empathy, it is equally plausible that an individual's dispositional tendencies toward experiencing empathy play an important role in shaping their tendencies to withdraw as well, especially given that empathy is an important factor for orienting people toward and away from others or certain social situations. Future longitudinal studies are necessary to better understand the direction and nature of relations between withdrawal and empathy development. Second, our study employed a variable‐oriented approach to investigate the associations between each motivation for social withdrawal and the different facets of empathy. While this approach allows us to understand general trends in the data and provides valuable insights into the relations between traits underlying each motivation for withdrawal and empathy, it does not capture the complexity of individual differences or the unique ways in which these variables interact within specific subgroups of participants. A person‐oriented approach would complement our current approach by identifying naturally occurring groups of withdrawn individuals who share similar characteristics and patterns of withdrawal. Such an approach could uncover subgroups that differ not only in their overall withdrawal tendencies (i.e., shy vs. avoidant vs. unsociable) but also in their degree of these characteristics (e.g., moderate vs. extreme avoidance). This could refine our understanding of how different withdrawal profiles relate to empathy and prosocial behavior in ways that may not be apparent from examining trait‐level associations alone. Although both variable‐oriented and person‐oriented approaches are valuable based on the research question and goals of our study—and thus our choice of approach was not a limitation per se—future research would benefit from adopting person‐oriented approaches that more appropriately capture distinct groups of socially withdrawn individuals. Such an approach could refine our understanding of group‐based differences in empathy and prosocial behavior among socially withdrawn individuals by classifying them into meaningful subgroups, rather than solely examining how these variables relate to continuous measures of shyness, avoidance, and unsociability.

Another limitation is that the study participants were all undergraduate students; hence, our results may not be generalizable to emerging adults who are not attending university. Future work should recruit emerging adults from the general population, as well as examine these relations both earlier and later in development. Finally, our measures of social withdrawal and empathy were restricted to self‐report questionnaires. Future studies should consider using multi‐method (e.g., questionnaires and behavioral observations) or multi‐informant (e.g., other‐report) approaches to enhance the robustness and validity of the findings. Additionally, although our findings regarding prosocial behavior make sense given the nature of the task we chose (i.e., low‐stakes, low‐stress, passive task), future work is encouraged to explore other forms of prosocial behavior such as helping or comforting behaviors, which may be more strongly influenced by the different components of empathy or one's tendencies to withdraw socially.

5. Conclusion

This study replicated and extended previous work on empathy and individual differences in social withdrawal to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the direct relations between each motivation for withdrawal and the three components of empathy, in addition to a measure of prosocial behavior. Our findings revealed differential relations between the different motivations for social withdrawal and aspects of both cognitive and affective empathy. Findings also revealed differences in concern for the well‐being of others held by individuals higher in shyness compared to individuals higher in avoidance. Overall, the present findings advance our understanding of the nuanced differences between the different motivations for social withdrawal and their connections with others. Additionally, findings highlight the importance of conceptualizing the different motivations for withdrawal as unique and investigating the various factors contributing to the underlying social, cognitive, and emotional processes motivating these individuals to approach or avoid social contexts.

Author Contributions

Rachel Scott: conceptualization, writing – original draft. Kristie L. Poole: investigation, conceptualization, writing – review and editing, supervision, data curation. Louis A. Schmidt: writing – review and editing, supervision. Raha Hassan: investigation, conceptualization, writing – review and editing, supervision, data curation.

Disclosure

This study was not preregistered.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the McMaster Research Ethics Board (approval no. #2356) on November 5, 2020.

Consent

Participants provided written informed consent for involvement in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Kristie L. Poole and Raha Hassan equal contribution, shared senior authorship listed in alphabetical order.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Allemand, M. , Steiger A. E., and Fend H. A.. 2015. “Empathy Development in Adolescence Predicts Social Competencies in Adulthood.” Journal of Personality 83, no. 2: 229–241. 10.1111/jopy.12098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, C. A. , Shibuya A., Ihori N., et al. 2010. “Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 2: 151–173. 10.1037/a0018251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett, J. J. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development From the Late Teens Through the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55, no. 5: 469–480. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asendorpf, J. B. 1990. “Beyond Social Withdrawal: Shyness, Unsociability, and Peer Avoidance.” Human Development 33, no. 4–5: 250–259. 10.1159/000276522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Auyeung, K. , and Alden L. E.. 2020. “Accurate Empathy, Social Rejection, and Social Anxiety Disorder.” Clinical Psychological Science 8, no. 2: 266–279. 10.1177/2167702619885410. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barry, C. M. , Nelson L. J., and Christofferson J. L.. 2013. “Asocial and Afraid: An Examination of Shyness and Anxiety in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Family Studies 19, no. 1: 2–18. 10.5172/jfs.2012.1979. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Batson, C. D. , Batson J. G., Slingsby J. K., Harrell K. L., Peekna H. M., and Todd R. M.. 1991. “Empathic Joy and the Empathy‐Altruism Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, no. 3: 413–426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumeister, R. F. , and Leary M. R.. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117, no. 3: 497–529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Blair, R. J. R. 2013. “The Neurobiology of Psychopathic Traits in Youths.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, no. 11: 786–799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowker, J. C. , and Raja R.. 2011. “Social Withdrawal Subtypes During Early Adolescence in India.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 39, no. 2: 201–212. 10.1007/s10802-010-9461-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowker, J. C. , Stotsky M. T., and Etkin R. G.. 2017. “How BIS/BAS and Psycho‐Behavioral Variables Distinguish Between Social Withdrawal Subtypes During Emerging Adulthood.” Personality and Individual Differences 119: 283–288. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buunk, A. P. , and Gibbons F. X.. 2006. “Social Comparison Orientation: A New Perspective on Those Who Do and Those Who Don't Compare With Others.” In Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture, edited by Guimond S., 15–32. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chávez, D. V. , Salmivalli C., Garandeau C. F., Berger C., and Kanacri B. P. L.. 2022. “Bidirectional Associations of Prosocial Behavior With Peer Acceptance and Rejection in Adolescence.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 51, no. 12: 2355–2367. 10.1007/s10964-022-01675-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Clifford, B. N. , Eggum N. D., An D., Clifford S., and Lemery‐Chalfant K.. 2022. “Withdrawn and Acting out?: Early Adolescents' Social Avoidance and Externalizing Problems.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 32, no. 2: 711–719. 10.1111/jora.12642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Clifford, B. N. , and Nelson L. J.. 2019. “Somebody to Lean on: The Moderating Effect of Relationships on Links Between Social Withdrawal and Self‐Worth.” Journal of Relationships Research 10: e9. 10.1017/jrr.2019.5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Closson, L. M. , McVarnock A., and Sanford K.. 2019. “Social Withdrawal and Social Surrogacy in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48, no. 4: 717–730. 10.1007/s10964-018-0932-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Closson, L. M. , McVarnock A. M., and Cook L. E.. 2022. “Is There an Upside to Social Withdrawal? Considering Well‐Being Among Socially Withdrawn Emerging Adults.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 17, no. 5: 3131–3149. 10.1007/s11482-022-10,056-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Coplan, R. , and Rubin K.. 2010. “Social Withdrawal and Shyness in Childhood: History, Theories, Definitions, and Assessments.” In The Development of Shyness and Social Withdrawal, edited by Rubin K. H. and Coplan R. J., 3–20. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Coplan, R. J. and Armer M.. 2007. “A “Multitude” of Solitude: A Closer Look at Social Withdrawal and Nonsocial Play in Early Childhood.” Child Development Perspectives 1, no. 1: 26–32. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00006.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Coplan, R. J. , Hipson W. E., and Bowker J. C.. 2021. “Social Withdrawal and Aloneliness in Adolescence: Examining the Implications of Too Much and Not Enough Solitude.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 50, no. 6: 1219–1233. 10.1007/s10964-020-01365-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Coplan, R. J. , Ooi L. L., and Baldwin D.. 2019. “Does It Matter When We Want to be Alone? Exploring Developmental Timing Effects in the Implications of Unsociability.” New Ideas in Psychology 53: 47–57. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Coplan, R. J. , Ooi L. L., and Nocita G.. 2015. “When One Is Company and Two Is a Crowd: Why Some Children Prefer Solitude.” Child Development Perspectives 9, no. 3: 133–137. 10.1111/cdep.12131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Coplan, R. J. , Ooi L. L., Rose‐Krasnor L., and Nocita G.. 2014. “‘I Want to Play Alone’: Assessment and Correlates of Self‐Reported Preference for Solitary Play in Young Children.” Infant and Child Development 23, no. 3: 229–238. [Google Scholar]
  24. Coplan, R. J. , Prakash K., O'Neil K., and Armer M.. 2004. “Do You “Want” to Play? Distinguishing Between Conflicted Shyness and Social Disinterest in Early Childhood.” Developmental Psychology 40, no. 2: 244–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis, M. A. 1980. “Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy.” JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85. [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis, M. H. 1983. “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, no. 1: 113–126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. De Vignemont, F. , and Singer T.. 2006. “The Empathic Brain: How, When and Why?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, no. 10: 435–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Decety, J. , and Jackson P. L.. 2004. “The Functional Architecture of Human Empathy.” Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3, no. 2: 71–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dixon, L. P. 2020. “The Impact of Spending Time Alone on Emerging Adults' Mental Well‐Being.” Family Perspectives 1, no. 2: 4. [Google Scholar]
  30. Djikic, M. , Oatley K., and Moldoveanu M. C.. 2013. “Reading Other Minds: Effects of Literature on Empathy.” Scientific Study of Literature 3, no. 1: 28–47. 10.1075/ssol.3.1.06dji. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Eisenberg, N. , Fabes R. A., Karbon M., et al. 1996. “The Relations of Children's Dispositional Prosocial Behavior to Emotionality, Regulation, and Social Functioning.” Child Development 67, no. 3: 974–992. 10.2307/1131874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Eisenberg, N. , Fabes R. A., Murphy B., et al. 1994. “The Relations of Emotionality and Regulation to Dispositional and Situational Empathy‐Related Responding.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, no. 4: 776–797. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Eisenberg, N. , Fabes R. A., Murphy B., Maszk P., Smith M., and Karbon M.. 1995. “The Role of Emotionality and Regulation in Children's Social Functioning: A Longitudinal Study.” Child Development 66, no. 5: 1360–1384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Eisenberg, N. , Spinrad T. L., and Knafo‐Noam A.. 2015. “Prosocial Development.” In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science: Socioemotional Processes, edited by Lamb M. E. and Lerner R. M., 610–656. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy315. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Forsythe, R. , Horowitz J. L., Savin N. E., and Sefton M.. 1994. “Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments.” Games and Economic Behavior 6, no. 3: 347–369. 10.1006/game.1994.1021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fraser, A. M. 2012. “I Just Can't Do It! The Effects of Social Withdrawal on Prosocial Behavior.” Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, ScholarsArchive. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2537733811/abstract/DC6FFF1044E741DDPQ/1.
  37. Fraser, A. M. , Padilla‐Walker L. M., Coyne S. M., Nelson L. J., and Stockdale L. A.. 2012. “Associations Between Violent Video Gaming, Empathic Concern, and Prosocial Behavior Toward Strangers, Friends, and Family Members.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41, no. 5: 636–649. 10.1007/s10964-012-9742-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Galanaki, E. P. , Nelson L. J., and Antoniou F.. 2023. “Social Withdrawal, Solitude, and Existential Concerns in Emerging Adulthood.” Emerging Adulthood 11, no. 4: 1006–1021. 10.1177/21676968231170247. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerace, A. , Day A., Casey S., and Mohr P.. 2017. “‘I Think, You Think’: Understanding the Importance of Self‐Reflection to the Taking of Another Person's Perspective.” Journal of Relationships Research 8: e9. 10.1017/jrr.2017.8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Godman, M. , Nagatsu M., and Salmela M.. 2014. “The Social Motivation Hypothesis for Prosocial Behavior.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44, no. 5: 563–587. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grühn, D. , Rebucal K., Diehl M., Lumley M., and Labouvie‐Vief G.. 2008. “Empathy Across the Adult Lifespan: Longitudinal and Experience‐Sampling Findings.” Emotion 8, no. 6: 753–765. 10.1037/a0014123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Guo, Q. , Sun P., and Li L.. 2018. “Shyness and Online Prosocial Behavior: A Study on Multiple Mediation Mechanisms.” Computers in Human Behavior 86: 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoffman, M. L. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805851. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jacobs, J. E. , Vernon M. K., and Eccles J. S.. 2004. “Relations Between Social Self‐Perceptions, Time Use, and Prosocial or Problem Behaviors During Adolescence.” Journal of Adolescent Research 19, no. 1: 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jorgensen, N. A. , and Nelson L. J.. 2018. “Moving Toward and Away From Others: Social Orientations in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 58: 66–76. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kagan, J. , Reznick J. S., and Snidman N.. 1987. “The Physiology and Psychology of Behavioral Inhibition in Children.” Child Development 58: 1459–1473. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, H. , and Han S.. 2018. “Does Personal Distress Enhance Empathic Interaction or Block It?” Personality and Individual Differences 124: 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, S. J. , and Kou X.. 2014. “Not all Empathy Is Equal: How Dispositional Empathy Affects Charitable Giving.” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 26, no. 4: 312–334. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kong, X. , Brook C. A., Li J., Li Y., and Schmidt L. A.. 2024. “Shyness Subtypes and Associations With Social Anxiety: A Comparison Study of Canadian and Chinese Children.” Developmental Science 27, no. 5: e13369. 10.1111/desc.13369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Litt, E. , Zhao S., Kraut R., and Burke M.. 2020. “What Are Meaningful Social Interactions in Today's Media Landscape? A Cross‐Cultural Survey.” Social Media + Society 6, no. 3: 2056305120942888. 10.1177/2056305120942888. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. LoBue, V. , and Pérez‐Edgar K.. 2014. “Sensitivity to Social and Non‐Social Threats in Temperamentally Shy Children At‐Risk for Anxiety.” Developmental Science 17, no. 2: 239–247. 10.1111/desc.12110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Long, C. R. , and Averill J. R.. 2003. “Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 33, no. 1: 21–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mason, M. , Mennis J., Russell M., Moore M., and Brown A.. 2019. “Adolescent Depression and Substance Use: The Protective Role of Prosocial Peer Behavior.” Journal of abnormal child psychology 47: 1065–1074. 10.1007/s10802-018-0501-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. McCullough, M. E. , Worthington E. L. Jr., and Rachal K. C.. 1997. “Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, no. 2: 321–336. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Miles, A. , Andiappan M., Upenieks L., and Orfanidis C.. 2021. “Using Prosocial Behavior to Safeguard Mental Health and Foster Emotional Well‐Being During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Registered Report Protocol for a Randomized Trial.” PloS one 16, no. 1: e0245865. 10.1371/journal.pone.0245865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Miles, A. , Andiappan M., Upenieks L., and Orfanidis C.. 2022. “Using Prosocial Behavior to Safeguard Mental Health and Foster Emotional Well‐Being During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Registered Report of a Randomized Trial.” PloS one 17, no. 7: e0272152. 10.1371/journal.pone.0272152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Miller, R. S. 1995. “On the Nature of Embarrassability: Shyness, Social Evaluation, and Social Skill.” Journal of Personality 63, no. 2: 315–339. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00812.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Nelson, L. J. 2013. “Going It Alone: Comparing Subtypes of Withdrawal on Indices of Adjustment and Maladjustment in Emerging Adulthood.” Social Development 22, no. 3: 522–538. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00671.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Nelson, L. J. , Coyne S. M., Howard E., and Clifford B. N.. 2016. “Withdrawing to a Virtual World: Associations Between Subtypes of Withdrawal, Media Use, and Maladjustment in Emerging Adults.” Developmental Psychology 52, no. 6: 933–942. 10.1037/dev0000128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Nelson, L. J. , and Millett M. A.. 2021. “Social Withdrawal During Emerging Adulthood.” In The Handbook of Solitude, edited by Coplan R. J., Bowker J. C., and Nelson L. J., 146–162. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 10.1002/9781119576457.ch11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Nguyen, T. T. , Werner K. M., and Soenens B.. 2019. “Embracing Me‐Time: Motivation for Solitude During Transition to College.” Motivation and Emotion 43, no. 4: 571–591. 10.1007/s11031-019-09759-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Nguyen, T. V. T. , Ryan R. M., and Deci E. L.. 2018. “Solitude as an Approach to Affective Self‐Regulation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44, no. 1: 92–106. 10.1177/0146167217733073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Paz, Y. , Orlitsky T., Roth‐Hanania R., Zahn‐Waxler C., and Davidov M.. 2021. “Predicting Externalizing Behavior in Toddlerhood From Early Individual Differences in Empathy.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 62, no. 1: 66–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pickett, C. L. , Gardner W. L., and Knowles M.. 2004. “Getting a Cue: The Need to Belong and Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30, no. 9: 1095–1107. 10.1177/0146167203262085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ringwald, W. R. , and Wright A. G. C.. 2021. “The Affiliative Role of Empathy in Everyday Interpersonal Interactions.” European Journal of Personality 35, no. 2: 197–211. 10.1002/per.2286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Rubin, K. H. , Coplan R. J., and Bowker J. C.. 2009. “Social Withdrawal in Childhood.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 141–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Schmidt, L. A. , Fox N. A., Rubin K. H., et al. 1997. “Behavioral and Neuroendocrine Responses in Shy Children.” Developmental Psychobiology 30, no. 2: 127–140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Sette, S. , Pecora G., Laghi F., and Coplan R. J.. 2023. “Motivations for Social Withdrawal, Mental Health, and Well‐Being in Emerging Adulthood: A Person‐Oriented Approach.” Behavioral Science 13, no. 12: 977. 10.3390/bs13120977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G. , Aharon‐Peretz J., and Perry D.. 2009. “Two Systems for Empathy: A Double Dissociation Between Emotional and Cognitive Empathy in Inferior Frontal Gyrus Versus Ventromedial Prefrontal Lesions.” Brain 132, no. 3: 617–627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Shechtman, Z. 2002. “Cognitive and Affective Empathy in Aggressive Boys: Implications for Counseling.” International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 24: 211–222. [Google Scholar]
  71. Theall‐Honey, L. A. , and Schmidt L. A.. 2006. “Do Temperamentally Shy Children Process Emotion Differently Than Nonshy Children? Behavioral, Psychophysiological, and Gender Differences in Reticent Preschoolers.” Developmental Psychobiology 48, no. 3: 187–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Thomas, V. 2023. “The Psychological Affordances of Solitude in Emerging Adulthood.” Emerging Adulthood 11, no. 3: 611–625. 10.1177/21676968231151982. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Thomas, V. , and Azmitia M.. 2019. “Motivation Matters: Development and Validation of the Motivation for Solitude Scale—Short Form (MSS‐SF).” Journal of Adolescence 70, no. 1: 33–42. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Van Willigen, M. 2000. “Differential Benefits of Volunteering Across the Life Course.” Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 55, no. 5: S308–S318. 10.1093/geronb/55.5.S308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Waller, R. , and Wagner N.. 2019. “The Sensitivity to Threat and Affiliative Reward (STAR) Model and the Development of Callous‐Unemotional Traits.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 107: 656–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Waller, R. , Wagner N. J., Barstead M. G., et al. 2020. “A Meta‐Analysis of the Associations Between Callous‐Unemotional Traits and Empathy, Prosociality, and Guilt.” Clinical Psychology Review 75: 101–809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Zava, F. , Sette S., Baumgartner E., and Coplan R. J.. 2021. “Shyness and Empathy in Early Childhood: Examining Links Between Feelings of Empathy and Empathetic Behaviours.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 39, no. 1: 54–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhu, J. , Xiao B., Hipson W., Yan C., Coplan R. J., and Li Y.. 2021. “Social Avoidance and Social Adjustment: The Moderating Role of Emotion Regulation and Emotion Lability/Negativity Among Chinese Preschool Children.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 618–670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zuffianò, A. , Eisenberg N., Alessandri G., et al. 2016. “The Relation of Pro‐Sociality to Self‐Esteem: The Mediational Role of Quality of Friendships.” Journal of Personality 84, no. 1: 59–70. 10.1111/jopy.12137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Scandinavian Journal of Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES