Solitude Capacity and Meaning in Life Among Chinese Elderly: The Mediating Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and the Moderating Role of Family Cohesion

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.018

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigates the relationship between solitude capacity and the sense of meaning in life among Chinese elderly, with a focus on the underlying mechanisms through a survey of 1082 senior adults (aged≥55 years). A moderated structural equation model revealed that: 1) Solitude capacity positively predicted the sense of meaning in life. 2) This association was fully mediated by the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness, with autonomy exhibiting the strongest mediating effect. 3) Family cohesion negatively moderated the first part of the pathway of the mediating effect. The findings indicate that in the absence of family support, the positive impact of solitude capacity on the fulfillment of basic psychological needs was intensified, thus partially mitigating the negative effects of a lack of intimacy.

Key words: solitude capacity, basic psychological need satisfaction, meaning in life, family cohesion, the elderly

摘要：

为考察独处能力对老年人生命意义感的影响及其内在机制，本研究对1082名55岁及以上老年人进行问卷调查，采用潜调节的结构方程模型进行检验，结果显示：(1)老年人独处能力显著正向预测生命意义感。(2)自主、胜任、关联三种基本心理需求的满足在独处能力和生命意义感之间起完全中介作用，其中自主需求满足的中介效应最强。(3)家庭亲密度负向调节独处能力与基本心理需求满足之间的关系。对于缺乏关爱和支持的家庭，独处能力对老年人基本心理需求满足的促进作用更显著，从而部分缓解了亲密关系缺失的负面影响。

关键词: 独处能力, 基本心理需求满足, 生命意义感, 家庭亲密度, 老年人

Yongshi HU, Yilin ZHAQ, Zhen ZHANG. Solitude Capacity and Meaning in Life Among Chinese Elderly: The Mediating Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and the Moderating Role of Family Cohesion[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 425-432.

胡永时, 赵怡霖, 张镇. 老年人独处能力与生命意义感：基本心理需求的中介和家庭亲密度的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 425-432.

Figures/Tables 7

References 0

	阿尔升•海达别克, 周同, 喻洁, 王计悦意, 陈飞, 丁雪辰. 毕生发展视角下独处的适应功能: 益处与代价的五轮比较. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32 (2): 330- 341.
	陈畅. 从“以知解独”到“以自解独”——论阳明学派慎独工夫转向及其哲学意义. 浙江社会科学, 2017, (12): 120- 131.
	陈红艳. 家庭环境与老年人主观幸福感的关系. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37 (11): 2803- 2805. DOI
	杜健, 加藤和生, 小林美绪. 自我决定理论基本心理需要满足量表中文版在大学生中的信效度检验. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2020, 28 (2): 218- 221.
	方杰, 温忠麟. 基于结构方程模型的有调节的中介效应分析. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (2): 453- 458.
	胡永时, 张镇. 老年人独处能力与抑郁症状: 心理韧性的中介和居住方式的调节作用. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2024, 32 (1): 1- 7.
	申琳琳, 张镇. 隔代教养意愿与祖辈主观幸福感的关系: 家庭亲密度与生命意义感的链式中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2020, 28 (4): 834- 839.
	王艳辉, 李董平, 孙文强, 赵力燕, 赖雪芬, 周月月. 亲子依恋与初中生亲社会行为: 有调节的中介效应. 心理学报, 2017, 49 (5): 663- 679.
	吴艳, 温忠麟. 结构方程建模中的题目打包策略. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19 (12): 1859- 1867.
	张荣伟, 李丹. 如何过上有意义的生活?——基于生命意义理论模型的整合. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26 (4): 744- 760.
	Bauer, J. J., King, L. A., & Steger, M. F. Meaning making, self-determination theory, and the question of wisdom in personality. Journal of Personality, 2019, 87 (1): 82- 101. DOI
	Birditt, K. S., Manalel, J. A., Sommers, H., Luong, G., & Fingerman, K. L. Better off alone: Daily solitude is associated with lower negative affect in more conflictual social networks. The Gerontologist, 2019, 59 (6): 1152- 1161. DOI
	Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 1994, 101 (4): 568- 586. DOI
	Buchholz, E. S. (1997). The call of solitude: Alonetime in a world of attachment. New York: Simon & Schuster.
	Burger, J. M. Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 1995, 29 (1): 85- 108. DOI
	Carstensen, L. L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hershfield, H., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., ... Nesselroade, J. R. Emotional experience improves with age: Evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychology and Aging, 2011, 26 (1): 21- 33. DOI
	Chui, H., Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., Walker, R., & Luszcz, M. A. Social partners and momentary affect in the oldest-old: The presence of others benefits affect depending on who we are and who we are with. Developmental Psychology, 2014, 50 (3): 728- 740. DOI
	Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91 (4): 802- 827. DOI
	English, T., & Carstensen, L. L. Selective narrowing of social networks across adulthood is associated with improved emotional experience in daily life. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2014, 38 (2): 195- 202. DOI
	Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999, 6 (1): 1- 55. DOI
	Jiang, D., Fung, H. H., Lay, J. C., Ashe, M. C., Graf, P., & Hoppmann, C. A. Everyday solitude, affective experiences, and well-being in old age: The role of culture versus immigration. Aging & Mental Health, 2019, 23 (9): 1095- 1104.
	Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P. J., & Kappen, G. Bridging the sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2017, 21 (1): 29- 49. DOI
	King, L. A., & Hicks J. A. The science of meaning in life. Annual Review of Psychology, 2021, 72, 561- 584. DOI
	Kluwer, E. S., Karremans, J. C., Riedijk, L., & Knee, C. R. Autonomy in relatedness: How need fulfillment interacts in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2020, 46 (4): 603- 616. DOI
	Krause, N. Stressors arising in highly valued roles, meaning in life, and the physical health status of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2004, 59 (5): S287- S297. DOI
	Krause, N., & Rainville, G. Age differences in meaning in life: Exploring the mediating role of social support. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2020, 88, 104008. DOI
	Larson, R., & Lee, M. (1996). The capacity to be alone as a stress buffer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, (1), 5–16.
	Larson, R. W. The solitary side of life: An examination of the time people spend alone from childhood to old age. Developmental Review, 1990, 10 (2): 155- 183. DOI
	Lay, J. C., Pauly, T., Graf, P., Mahmood, A. & Hoppmann, C. A. Choosing solitude: Age differences in situational and affective correlates of solitude-seeking in midlife and older adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2020, 75 (3): 483- 493.
	Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 2017, 152, 157- 171. DOI
	Littman-Ovadia, H. Doing-being and relationship-solitude: A proposed model for a balanced life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2019, 20 (6): 1953- 1971. DOI
	Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2003, 33 (1): 21- 44. DOI
	Lu, N., Spencer, M., Sun, Q., & Lou, V. W. Q. Family social capital and life satisfaction among older adults living alone in urban China: The moderating role of functional health. Aging & Mental Health, 2021, 25 (4): 695- 702.
	Martela, F., Ryan, R. M., & Steger, M. F. Meaningfulness as satisfaction of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: Comparing the four satisfactions and positive affect as predictors of meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2018, 19 (5): 1261- 1282. DOI
	Menec, V. H., Newall, N. E., Mackenzie, C. S., Shooshtari, S., & Nowicki, S. Examining social isolation and loneliness in combination in relation to social support and psychological distress using Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA) data. PLoS One, 2020, 15 (3): e0230673. DOI
	Ost-Mor, S., Palgi, Y., & Segel-Karpas, D. Exploring gaps in positive solitude perceptions: Older adults vs. gerontology professionals. International Psychogeriatrics, 2021, 33 (12): 1253- 1263. DOI
	Pauly, T., Lay, J. C., Scott, S. B., & Hoppmann, C. A. Social relationship quality buffers negative affective correlates of everyday solitude in an adult lifespan and an older adult sample. Psychology and Aging, 2018, 33 (5): 728- 738. DOI
	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88 (5): 879- 903. DOI
	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Greensboro, NC: The Guilford Publishing.
	Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2008, 9 (1): 139- 170. DOI
	Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, 91 (2): 331- 341. DOI
	Tang, M. M., Wang, D. H., & Guerrien, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in later life: Contributions of self-determination theory. PsyCh Journal, 2019, 9 (1): 5- 33.
	Toyoshima, A., & Kusumi, T. Examining the relationship between preference for solitude and subjective well-being among Japanese older adults. Innovation in Aging, 2022, 6 (1): 54.
	Weinstein, N., Nguyen, T. V., & Hansen, H. What time alone offers: Narratives of solitude from adolescence to older adulthood. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12, 714518. DOI
	Weinstein, N., Nguyen, T. V., & Hansen, H. (2023). With my self: Self-determination theory as a framework for understanding the role of solitude in personal growth. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 402–423). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
	Winnicott, D. W. The capacity to be alone. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1958, 39, 416- 420.

变量	类别	人数	百分比(%)
年龄(岁)	55～59	522	48.24
	60～69	426	39.37
	70～79	117	10.82
	80以上	17	1.57
性别	女	629	58.13
性别	男	453	41.87
婚姻状况	有配偶	938	86.69
婚姻状况	无配偶	144	13.31
受教育程度	小学或以下	86	7.95
	初中	231	21.35
	高中或中专	430	39.74
	大专	219	20.24
	本科及以上	116	10.72
长期居住地	农村	199	18.39
长期居住地	城市	883	81.61
月收入(元)	1000以下	53	4.90
	1000～3000	269	24.86
	3000～5000	431	39.83
	5000～7000	234	21.63
	7000以上	95	8.78
居住状况	主要独居	86	7.95
	主要和配偶	492	45.47
	主要和子女	161	14.88
	配偶和子女	301	27.82
	其他亲属	42	3.88
身体状况	很差	8	0.74
	比较差	62	5.73
	一般	434	40.11
	比较好	444	41.04
	很好	134	12.38

变量	类别	人数	百分比(%)
年龄(岁)	55～59	522	48.24
	60～69	426	39.37
	70～79	117	10.82
	80以上	17	1.57
性别	女	629	58.13
性别	男	453	41.87
婚姻状况	有配偶	938	86.69
婚姻状况	无配偶	144	13.31
受教育程度	小学或以下	86	7.95
	初中	231	21.35
	高中或中专	430	39.74
	大专	219	20.24
	本科及以上	116	10.72
长期居住地	农村	199	18.39
长期居住地	城市	883	81.61
月收入(元)	1000以下	53	4.90
	1000～3000	269	24.86
	3000～5000	431	39.83
	5000～7000	234	21.63
	7000以上	95	8.78
居住状况	主要独居	86	7.95
	主要和配偶	492	45.47
	主要和子女	161	14.88
	配偶和子女	301	27.82
	其他亲属	42	3.88
身体状况	很差	8	0.74
	比较差	62	5.73
	一般	434	40.11
	比较好	444	41.04
	很好	134	12.38

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.独处能力	3.42±0.52
2.独处适应	3.39±0.51	0.90***
3.独处舒适	3.44±0.62	0.94***	0.69***
4.生命意义感	3.89±0.68	0.36***	0.34***	0.32***
5.自主需求满足	3.90±0.74	0.33***	0.34***	0.28***	0.78***
6.胜任需求满足	3.77±0.73	0.36***	0.36***	0.30***	0.72***	0.68***
7.关联需求满足	3.96±0.72	0.21***	0.23***	0.17***	0.72***	0.68***	0.64***
8.家庭亲密度	3.82±0.68	0.22***	0.19***	0.21***	0.48***	0.41***	0.37***	0.51***

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.独处能力	3.42±0.52
2.独处适应	3.39±0.51	0.90***
3.独处舒适	3.44±0.62	0.94***	0.69***
4.生命意义感	3.89±0.68	0.36***	0.34***	0.32***
5.自主需求满足	3.90±0.74	0.33***	0.34***	0.28***	0.78***
6.胜任需求满足	3.77±0.73	0.36***	0.36***	0.30***	0.72***	0.68***
7.关联需求满足	3.96±0.72	0.21***	0.23***	0.17***	0.72***	0.68***	0.64***
8.家庭亲密度	3.82±0.68	0.22***	0.19***	0.21***	0.48***	0.41***	0.37***	0.51***

影响路径	β	SE	t	95%CI		相对中介效应占比(%)
影响路径	β	SE	t	低	高	相对中介效应占比(%)
总效应	0.32***	0.03	9.49	0.26	0.39
直接效应	0.06	0.03	1.85	−0.01	0.13	18.75
总间接效应	0.26***	0.03	8.46	0.20	0.32	81.25
独处能力→自主 →生命意义感	0.14***	0.03	5.05	0.09	0.20	51.92
独处能力→胜任 →生命意义感	0.08**	0.02	3.69	0.04	0.13	31.15
独处能力→关联 →生命意义感	0.04***	0.01	3.13	0.02	0.08	16.92