Social distancing has been a first call for action after the widespread of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been enforced all over the world as the most important and efficient way to “flatten the curve”. Indeed, it looks like it works and we all might need to continue with a lock-down for some time. However, many psychologists almost instantly reacted on different social media platforms urging not to mix up physical distancing and social distancing. Intuitively, it makes sense. However, let’s take a look what are the dangers of social distancing that so many psychologists intuitively oppose to. What science tells us about social distancing and social isolation, why it is so dangerous, and what can we do about it?

Here are the conclusions and those who are interested in science behind it can read below:

Science of Social Isolation:

First of all, the impact of social isolation has been studied for long time now and some studies suggest that the impact of isolation and loneliness on health and even mortality are of the same order of magnitude as such risk factors as high blood pressure, obesity, and smoking (e.g., Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). It makes sense from evolutionary perspective. We are a social species and our social networks enabled us to survive, collaborate and thrive. Our survival was served by the evolutionary development of behaviors and physiologic mechanisms that support social interactions (Cacioppo et al., 2011). Although there is a great variability in our need, personality traits, beliefs, and behaviors, we all are psychologically and biologically “programmed” to need social networks. It is logical that social isolation may impose stress on our minds and bodies that has a significant impact on health.

But let us first to clarify different concepts used to describe this phenomenon of social isolation. Just in these two paragraphs I have already used few different terms: social isolation, loneliness, social distancing. They sound very similar, but there are some important differences:

• Social isolation – have been usually defined as small social networks, infrequent social contacts, absence of confidante connections, living alone, and lack of participation in social activities (Cornwall & Waite, 2009; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Social isolation or disconnectedness is defined as lack of contact with others concerned and is more with environmental impoverishment or restriction than with the individual’s ability to create and maintain social relationships.
• Loneliness or perceived isolation [as it was termed by Weiss (1973)] is a subjective experience of lack of companionship and support. It is a subjective feeling of being without the type of relationships one desires. It may also describe a deficit between the actual and desired quality and quantity of social engagement.

It is important to distinguish between social isolation and loneliness, although the former condition may, indeed, lead to the latter. The intuitive assumption is that social disconnectedness without perceived isolation (i.e. isolation without loneliness) would be more “ego syntonic” and less stressful than states of loneliness and depression, therefore having less impact on health. However, research has not always supported this assumption (Cornwell & Waite, 2009). Social isolation, with or without loneliness, can have as large effect on mortality risk as smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle and high blood  pressure (Cacioppo et al. 2011).

Perceived social isolation (i.e., loneliness) has been found to predict increased morbidity and mortality (e.g., Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010) even after adjusting for objective social isolation and health behaviors (Luo & Waite 2014). Similarly, more recent research (Tanskanen & Anttila, 2016) suggests that social isolation, even from only a few spheres of social relationship, can have an adverse effect on mortality; however, they did not find connection between loneliness and mortality. Social isolation has been connected to physical or general health whereas loneliness has more impact on mental health (Cornwell & Waite, 2009).

Risk factors related positively to loneliness include male gender, physical health symptoms, chronic work or social stress, small social network, and lack of a spousal confidant (e.g., Hawkley et al. 2008). It is clear that we need to be aware of the negative impact of both social isolation and loneliness during the coronavirus pandemic. However, naturally most of our efforts go to maintain social contacts. We are telling each other and trying to maintain online contacts, participate in online groups, webinars etc. This might help with the social isolation aspect (which is still very important), however, we need to put separate attention and effort to address our loneliness.

Why is the perception of social isolation (loneliness) important to consider?

Human and animal research on the effects of social isolation on the brain suggests the involvement of multiple, functionally distinct brain mechanisms including neural mechanisms involved in social threat surveillance and aversion (e.g., amygdala, anterior insula, anterior cingulate), social reward (e.g., ventral striatum), and attention to one’s self-preservation in a social context (e.g., orbitofrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, superior temporal sulcus, temporal parietal junction) (Bickart et al. 2012; Eisenberger & Cole 2012; Klumpp et al. 2012). The perception of isolation from others does not only makes us unhappy, but also signals danger.

Perceived social isolation activates neural, neuroendocrine, and behavioral responses that promote short-term self-preservation. Among the range of neural and behavioral effects of perceived isolation documented in human adults are an increased implicit vigilance for social threats along with increased anxiety, hostility, and social withdrawal; increased sleep fragmentation and daytime fatigue; increased vascular resistance and altered gene expression and immunity; decreased impulse control in favor of responses highest in the response hierarchy (i.e., prepotent responding); increased negativity and depressive symptomatology; and increased age-related cognitive decline and risk of dementia (Cacioppo & Hawkley 2009).

Indeed, growing evidence indicates that loneliness increases attention to negative social stimuli (e.g., social threats, rejection, exclusion). These changes observed in human and animal studies support short-term self-preservation by preparing the individual to detect and defend against any potential assault as well as to identify and solicit any socially mediated resources (e.g., food, shelter, reproductive opportunities) that may become available.

A large cohort study has recently revealed that different methods of contact are not equal in reducing feelings of loneliness and depression. These investigators found a higher risk of depression in those with less than once-a-month face to face contact with children, family, or friends. People with once or twice-a-week contact had the lowest rates of depression. However, older age, interpersonal conflict, and depression at baseline decreased the effect of physical contact. That is, if a person is prone to depression, is physically frail, or the relationship causes tension, a phone call may be as good (or better) than in-person contact (Teo et al., 2015). There is also an increasing amount of evidence that pets, especially dogs and cats, are associated with health benefits and reduced mortality.

References:

1. Bickart KC, Hollenbeck MC, Feldman Barrett L, Dickerson BC. 2012. Intrinsic amygdala-cortical functional connectivity predicts social network size in humans. J. Neurosci. 32:14729–41
2. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC. 2009. Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13:447–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005
3. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Norman GJ and Berntson GG, Social isolation. Ann NY Acad Sci 2011; 123:11:17-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06028.x
4. Cornwell EY and Waite LJ. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. J Health Soc Behav 2009 March 50:1:31-48
5. Distel MA, Rebollo-Mesa I, Abdellaoui A, Derom CA, Willemsen G, et al. 2010. Familial resemblance for loneliness. Behav. Genet. 40:480–94
6. Eisenberger NI, Cole SW. 2012. Social neuroscience and health: neurophysiological mechanisms linking social ties with physical health. Nat. Neurosci. 15:669–74
7. Hawkley LC, Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Masi CM, Thisted RA, Cacioppo JT. 2008. From social structure factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. J. Gerontol. Soc. Sci. 63B:S375–84
8. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7)
9. Klumpp H, Angstadt M, Phan KL. 2012. Insula reactivity and connectivity to anterior cingulate cortex when processing threat in generalized social anxiety disorder. Biol. Psychol. 89:273–76
10. Luo Y, Waite LJ. 2014. Loneliness and mortality among older adults in China. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 69:633–45
11. Tanskanen, J., & Anttila, T. (2016). A Prospective Study of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Mortality in Finland. American journal of public health, 106(11), 2042–2048.
12. Weiss RS. 1973. Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.