ArticlePloS one2024
German population norms of the preference to solitude scale and its correlates.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The network structure of psychological wellbeing: paranormal belief is peripheral but meaningful.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimOur first aim was to present norm values for the Preference for Solitude Scale by sex, age, and other sociodemographic groups. Our second aim was to evaluate the correlates of preference for solitude.
methodsData were collected in August/September 2023 from a sample of individuals (N = 5000) living in Germany aged 18 to 74 years (ensuring representativeness in terms of sex, age group and federal state for the German general adult population). The established and valid Preference for Solitude Scale (range 0 to 12, with higher values reflecting a stronger preference for solitude) was used to quantify the preference for solitude. Norm values were provided by sex and age groups. Multiple linear regressions were used to examine the correlates of preference for solitude.
resultsAverage preference for solitude score was 7.6 (SD = 3.0; 0 to 12). The average score was 7.3 (SD = 3.0) among males and 7.9 (SD = 2.9) among females. Regressions showed that a stronger preference for solitude was associated with being female (β = .51, p < .001), being older (e.g., being 40 to 49 years compared to 18 to 29 years, β = .85, p < .001), being single (e.g., divorced compared to being single, β = -.78, p < .01), higher level of education (secondary education compared to primary education, β = .43, p < .01), never been a smoker (e.g., daily smoker compared to never smokers, β = -.61, p < .001), absence of alcohol consumption (e.g., drinking once a week compared to never drinking, β = -1.09, p < .001), no sports activity (e.g., 2-4 hours per week compared to no sports activity, β = -.60, p < .001), poorer self-rated health (β = .28, p < .001) and more depressive symptoms (β = .05, p < .001). Sex-stratified regressions yielded similar results.
conclusionNorm values provided in this study can be used as a benchmark for comparison with other countries and can guide further research dealing with preferences for solitude. We demonstrated the importance of several sociodemographic factors (e.g., marital status), lifestyle-related factors (e.g., sports activity), and health-related factors (e.g., depressive symptoms) for the preference for solitude. Such knowledge about the correlates of preference for solitude may help to characterize them. This is essential to ensure a good balance between social interaction and being alone. This is important because preference for solitude is associated with poor self-rated health and depression, but also with healthy behaviors such as abstaining from smoking and drinking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.