Misery Loves Company, Not Isolation

We are told that the coronavirus may result in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. The way to minimize this terrifying outcome is to practice social isolation. And yet, people are not always sheltering in place. They are not avoiding contact. Why?

Misery loves company, not isolation. We are social animals like dogs, monkeys, and apes. We are not cats. The need to connect physically, especially when we are distressed, is in our DNA. From early childhood , our natural reaction to fear and danger is to join with others, comfort one another, and face the problem together. There is strength in connection. This is true for us both individually and collectively. When we are terrified, we seek out others for safety and reassurance. Who wants to be alone, isolated, when facing danger? We call on those we care for and who care for us. Sometimes we just seek the company of others who are not even particularly close to us. We like to be around people at these times. The same holds true for a collective crisis. We came together on 9/11. We came together after Superstorm Sandy. Neighbors and strangers supported each other and spent time together. We are built to behave that way and it has worked for us. It is who we are.

The most unnatural thing to do when frightened, let alone terrified, is to avoid others. Yet that is exactly what we are being told to do, what we must do, in response to the pandemic. Instead of seeking out others to lean on in our time of need, we are told to avoid others, lest they infect us or we infect them. We must isolate ourselves. We must maintain a distance of at least six feet. We cannot touch. Contact is actually dangerous. This feels, at a very deep level, very wrong.

Psychological research demonstrates that isolating ourselves goes against our core instincts. We know that solitary confinement is so aversive that it can be a form of torture and can make us go mad. And it doesn’t have to be that extreme. A recent report in Science discussed the negative effects of the type of social isolation we are being asked to do. We also know that a lack of intimate contact can be literally deadly. Rene’ Spitz reported that infants in a foundling home, who were well taken care of physically by professional nurses (washed, changed, fed) became lethargic; many died. Infants in a prison nursery, taken care of by their mothers, under much worse physical conditions, did better; none died. The difference? Physical care versus loving maternal care. Touching and holding.

Harry Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys from their biological mother and provided them with an inanimate surrogate wire “mother” that supplied life-sustaining food as well as a cloth “mother” that offered only a soft surface. The monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth mother and only went to the wire mother to eat. Moreover, they ran to the cloth mother, not the wire mother, when upset. Contact comfort was more important to them than food. Attachment research shows that the need to feel attached to someone and to maintain proximity to that person is a basic human need. If it is interfered with, infants and children become distraught and can suffer permanent damage. As Mikulincer and Shaver showed, adults are just like children in this regard. Schachter, as well as Gump and Kulik, demonstrated that fear makes adults seek out others. And Wisman and Koole showed that the need to be with others is particularly strong when a person is faced with death. The data are overwhelming. We need to be with others and to be able to touch them.

Instead of being surprised by how many of us are not sheltering in place, perhaps we should be impressed by how many are. Instead of chastising people for behaving like people, we should be thinking of how to help them behave in ways that every fiber of their evolutionary and developmental heritage tells them is exactly the wrong thing to do. That their very being rebels against.

There are two ways to deal with this problem. One is to make the unconscious conscious. Explain to the public that their need, their drive, their compulsion to be with others and to touch others is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. It is not selfish. It is not proof of weakness of will. And tell them that now that you know what you are dealing with, you can apply that big brain that evolution has also equipped us with and use it to overcome our natural, usually adaptive, inclinations. Figure out a way to satisfy at least a bit of the need to connect. Make regular use of social media. Catch up with friends. It’s not what you really want, but it can tide you over for a while. Isolation will lead to short-term misery but long term company. Set it up now. Plan for the future. We can (temporarily) override our natures so that we can once again, in the near future, express them.

Another way is to use the unconscious. We know that people have a natural inclination to follow authority. Milgram taught us how far this can go. Our leaders (authorities) need to exercise that authority and demand that people keep apart. Instead, our leaders often waffle. They need to speak with one voice. Leaders should couple this insistence with an explanation of why this has to be while also making clear that there is no choice here. Baumrind called this authoritative parenting.

If these strategies are utilized, we stand the best chance of having people behave in a way that will increase our chances of getting through this with the fewest casualties.

To summarize:

1. Give the public an explanation as to why we normatively resist isolating ourselves, along with why we need to act against our unconscious natures, in clear and supportive language. We can do this; we have the cognitive and emotional resources to override unconscious inclinations.

2. Assert the unconscious power of authority and insist that this is what we must do. Say it in a united authoritative voice. Combine this with an explanation as to why this is the right course of action.