Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 9, Article number: 202 (2022)
1901
3
90
Metrics details
Fears and social ties have been frequently discussed during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is still insufficiently examined how people have developed or mitigated social ties, bias and inter-group conflicts caused by fear. This review examined relevant COVID-19 literature and the psychology of anxiety, distress and aggression to consider how these adverse behaviours might be neutralised by cognitive flexibility. The results showed that social ties function as both risk and protective factors. The importance of social ties was repeatedly described as alleviating loneliness; nevertheless, people also expressed stigma-related anxiety (fear of criticism via empathic distress) associated with peer pressures and hostile vigilantism. Social ties and empathy have strengthened human cohesion and helped reconcile relations, but they also reinforced unfavourable biased bonds, terror and rumours that benefited in-group members while discriminating against out-group individuals. Furthermore, cognitive flexibility may assuage these negative consequences through shifting attention and perspective. Context-adjusted viewpoints and reciprocal dialogues seem crucial. The subsequent mitigation of misunderstandings, fear-induced bias, and maladaptive distress appraisal may lead to more reasonable and flexible recognition of social ties. The significance of this conclusion is in its potential for implementing intervention programmes to reduce pandemic-induced fear, and it could help to address other relevant issues, such as refugee crises and displaced people, a phenomenon that is globally developing discrimination, stigma and polarised blaming. It is worth further investigating how flexibility and inter-group empathy help pursue humanitarianism.
Fears and social connections have received significant attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, limited attention has been directed toward the psychological and societal consequences of the prevailing pandemic. Although social ties are adaptive and crucial for survival, they can act as both risk and protective factors. While recent studies have argued that people who value social ties personally or culturally often gain better mental health outcomes, when socially isolated, excluded, or subjected to rumours, these people might be overly affected by criticism, shame and anxiety (Holt-Lunstad 2018; Jeste et al. 2020).
During the pandemic, observations toward others have increased, and people might have become more susceptible to others’ criticism (Biswas et al. 2021; Saeed et al. 2020). When subjected to quarantine or rejection (discrimination), they are frequently afraid of losing respect and value in the eyes of others. Besides such worries about self-worth, people were also worried about the distress they caused to others, which involves other-focused concerns (OFCs) (Hornsey et al. 2021). Namely, in addition to the fear of being infected, fear of infecting or distressing others has also been described (Shanafelt et al. 2020). OFCs are thought to be relatively more common in group-oriented societies where people pay more attention to others’ thoughts or feelings in an empathic manner (Mathur et al. 2010; Lewis-Fernández and Kirmayer 2019). In many collectivistic cultures, inter-personal relationships are more strongly valued and public embarrassment (stigma) or error (disturbance) is frequently avoided via OFCs. OFCs might have increased due to COVID-19 as OFC-induced cooperation and collectivistic behaviours can help assuage the outbreak (e.g., wearing masks or receiving vaccinations).
It can be further speculated that OFCs or other-oriented anxiety might have globally arisen in the pandemic (Montemurro 2020; Tei and Wu 2021), but questions remain as to how they might be triggered and experienced. Such nuanced psycho-social investigation on OFC-related anxiety and shame belief (fear-induced bias) has been largely overlooked, but it is vital in the post-pandemic context, as anxiety may persist and grow.
Another question worth asking is whether and how a sense of belonging could also exaggerate conflicts and prejudice between groups during the pandemic. Although people develop a sense of social ties, social identity and empathy through daily life, in practice, these experiences are often biased towards out-group members, prompting social polarisation (Lantos and Molenberghs 2021; Fujino et al. 2020; Tei et al. 2019a; Simas et al. 2020). In other words, global fear and uncertainty can reinforce a sense of social ties oriented toward in-group members, but these experiences might also foster racial and political tensions as well as discrimination against virus-infected groups (Lees and Cikara 2021; Mathur et al. 2010).
These inter-group conflicts and discriminations may be associated with fragile or impulsive behaviours that oppose socially flexible behaviours, e.g., an attitude or ability to change/adjust performances according to occurring situations (Uddin 2021; Fujino et al. 2017). However, this issue is still insufficiently investigated. Thus, it calls for further exploration of relevant cognitive literature, which could help illuminate how people might construct or comprehend inter-personal situations and behave (mal)adaptively. While many COVID-19 related studies report incidents wherein people frequently show socially maladaptive (or inflexible) behaviours, it is informative to search for an overarching cognitive explanation. We were thus motivated to explore possible psychological mechanisms of fear-induced bias and conflicts, and examine how cognitive flexibility might assuage these adverse consequences of the pandemic.
This paper aims to examine how people have developed and mitigated social ties, bias and tensions caused by fear of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, other-focused social anxiety was studied (i.e. OFCs related to social anxiety, such as fear of offending/infecting others). Next, inter-group conflicts that could be associated with fear-induced bias (maladaptive distress) were inspected. Subsequently, the psychology of these unfavourable behaviours and flexibility was briefly illustrated in cognitive and brain-imaging studies to evaluate how a conceptual model could show that cognitive flexibility might weaken these behaviours.
We searched pertinent COVID-19 literature on social ties, fear, bias and cognitive studies concerning anxiety, conflicts and flexibility. We mainly searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases. In this preliminary review, considering that the COVID-19 pandemic is a relatively novel subject matter, evidence on social ties, fear and bias were also searched using Google Scholar. Based on previous reviews of the literature (Chaimowitz et al. 2021; Trudgill et al. 2020), the following keywords and alternatives were used: ‘COVID-19’, ‘social ties’, ‘social identity’, ‘fear’, ‘anxiety’, ‘bias’, ‘offending others’, ‘stigma’, ‘group conflicts’, ‘maladaptive’ and ‘cognitive flexibility’. Inclusion criteria were broad: we included literature that involved the development or mitigation of social ties, inter-group bias and conflicts associated with pandemic-induced fear, regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity. Moreover, a manual search of the reference sections of these articles was carried out to identify other potentially relevant articles up to March 2020. Exclusion criteria were studies that were not published in English, articles without references or those with only abstracts indexed in a searched database without a full manuscript. In the initial search, 1314 pieces of literature were identified. All retrieved studies were assessed for eligibility according to the above conditions, and to reduce selection biases. A checklist and quality appraisal tools were also used (Moher et al. 2015). Consensus ranking was performed to screen all sourced data for inclusion in the references. A narrative synthesis involving interpretation and representation in a collective form was used to process the results (Campbell et al. 2003; Chaimowitz et al. 2021).
We observed that social ties helped strengthen inter-personal relationships; however, a sense of social ties also appeared disproportionately augmented in the form of an in-group identity (sense of belonging), peer pressures and empathic distress. During the earlier phase of the pandemic, some people overstated worries about their COVID-19-positive status being revealed to others and causing distress for them. Moreover, fear-induced stereotyping and vigilantism were manifested with hostility.
Results showed that people globally experienced various OFCs, ranging from (1) altruistic to (2) relatively more biased. Altruistic OFCs involve worries about infecting or offending others, which are frequently expressed among the general population, non-health workers and medical professionals (May et al. 2021; Fisher et al. 2021; Shanafelt et al. 2020). Biased OFC was also observed among the general population and medical professionals and was often complemented by obsessive distress appraisals, rumours and stigma.
Some people reported OFC together with feelings of ostracism. Even after quarantine, they felt judged or feared situations where acquaintances avoided interaction (Ransing et al. 2020; Shelus et al. 2020; Tei and Wu 2021). Moreover, other people indicated elevated OFCs and distress about the risk of transmitting the virus to their loved ones besides the fear of their own infection (Banerjee et al. 2021). For example, an individual who was found to be positive and the cause of 38 persons’ infection expressed that he was preoccupied with feelings of embarrassment, agony and anxiety as to how he might have infected more subjects and what other people in his neighbour would be thinking about him. These concerns and feelings of distress seemed to be further aggravated by stigma or peer pressures (Sahoo et al. 2020).
When associated with traumatic/suicidal incidents, OFC was also communicated with much more amplified (biased) empathic distress. The number of COVID-19-related suicides in Asian and Western countries presumably has been provoked by shame or self-blame (guilt). This was accompanied by experienced stigma (i.e., actual discrimination and harassment) and also anticipated (imaginary) stigma (Montemurro 2020; Mamun and Griffiths 2020). Some people with a positive infection result, or even suspected infection, performed suicide to ensure that others were not infected (Griffiths and Mamun 2020; Thakur and Jain 2020; Goyal et al. 2020). Specifically, the reasons for OFC-related suicide have ranged from relatively rational (suicide after learning about COVID-19-positive status) to imaginary fears (misunderstood or not having COVID-19-positive status).
As such, during the earlier phase of the pandemic, a considerable number of people have expressed OFC-related anxiety; worry about their COVID-19-positive status being revealed to family, colleagues or teammates in sports and causing distress or trouble for them (withdrawal of work, lectures and athletic games), thereby avoiding medical examinations or contacting others (Kato et al. 2020; Rubin 2020).
The importance of social ties and empathy was strongly evidenced as having weakened peoples’ loneliness and helped reconcile relations (Marzouki et al. 2021; Banerjee and Rai 2020); however, group conflicts, discrimination and vigilantism also manifested globally, possibly by fear-induced bias and stereotyping.
During the pandemic, some peoples’ sense of social ties appeared to be augmented but restricted to in-group identity (sense of belonging). People were frequently judged and treated verbally and physically as members of internal or external groups rather than as individuals. Prejudices, inaccurate negative beliefs and hostility have been observed worldwide. For instance, virus-related categorisations of the desired in-group (uninfected/vaccinated) and out-group (infected/unvaccinated) have developed an inter-group differentiation (Lam 2021), and hatred and violence between ethnic/cultural, religious, or political groups have increased significantly (Jordan et al. 2021; Parker and Mounk 2020).
In addition to the prejudices provoked by fears, people are at risk of developing an impulsive and fragile mentality and emotional turmoil. For example, according to Lam (2021), government’s ruling by decree was enacted in Hungary, Kenya and the Philippines indefinitely. Under increased socio-political pressure and curfew, police and military personnel were authorised to shoot violators of the government’s orders to prevent violence (Wasike 2020). Violent vigilantism has also been observed in Japan, where the approach to slow down the outbreak heavily depended on peer pressure (such as stay-at-home recommendations and wearing face masks). Meanwhile, peer pressure may have also prompted vigilant practices (McCurry 2020), resulting in highly antagonistic behaviours by harassing potential spreaders through severe internet bullying of rule-breakers. For example, those who did not follow the government’s stay-at-home recommendation have been criticised or threatened, e.g. their pictures were posted on social media (Osaki 2020). Furthermore, long-distance travellers, like truck drivers, considered virus-carrying distressing invaders of communities, have been common targets. Moreover, not only people involved in innocent transportation duty have been severely hunted down. Healthcare staff and their families have also been bothered.
According to recent studies, cognitive flexibility can alleviate COVID-19-related distress, fear-induced bias and conflicts (Shanahan et al. 2020; Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam 2020; Kroska et al. 2020; Feldman 2020). Cognitive flexibility may buffer fragile impulsivity by adaptive shifting or maintaining attention between conflicting perspectives (Daks et al. 2020). It may support thinking about different perspectives or decision rules simultaneously, highlighting the significance of those points of view, thereby resolving emotional conflicts or easing bias and distress. Meanwhile, social anxiety during the pandemic frequently involved emotional hypersensitivity and inaccurate or maladaptive interpretations of thoughts pertaining to social encounters (Montemurro 2020; Tei and Wu 2021). In particular, inter-personal distress and OFC-related anxiety were associated with excessive empathic concerns and peer pressure (Ellis et al. 2020). Furthermore, COVID-19-related anxiety was also linked with responsibility beliefs and obsessive-compulsive symptom trends in the general population (Meșterelu et al. 2021).
The study aimed to examine how people developed and mitigated social ties, bias and inter-group conflict induced by fear during the pandemic. In this endeavour, we outlined related social and cognitive psychology theories into a framework and inspected how flexibility might be counteracted by fear-induced bias and conflicts. Our results support the view that social ties and empathy can function as both risk and protective factors. Social ties and empathy can mitigate solitude and enhance in-group cohesion; however, they can also heighten inter-group conflicts or distort mental well-being, which could be worsened by fear-induced bias or reduced cognitive flexibility.
The dark side of social ties and empathy has long been emphasised in different academic disciplines, but the COVID-19 pandemic has shed additional light on the subject. The above results are in accordance with previous interdisciplinary research (Bloom 2016; Prinz 2011; Throop and Zahavi 2020). In philosophy, for instance, there is copious literature on how the meaning we ascribe to specific concepts and how we use them to justify our judgements and actions uncover, for different reasons, prejudice, marginalisation, and even violence (cf. Throop and Zahavi 2020). Such complex psychological processes underlying violence and prejudice have been an essential question to scholars in philosophy, social psychology and psychiatry.
Our results suggest that OFC-related anxiety (worries about distressing others) can be aggravated by fear-induced bias and that stigma (both experienced and anticipated) and empathic distress can be its potential precursors. It is possible that OFC-related anxiety can be amplified when feelings of distress (self and others), worries about the loss of social ties (or self-worth), and anticipated stigma become maladaptive. The gaps between self-perceived information and actual information of other people (impression or evaluation of oneself) have long been a hot topic in psychology, especially in the theory of self-conscious emotions, such as guilt, shame or pride (Tangney et al. 2012). The incongruity between self-acquired knowledge and actual knowledge of the pandemic has also been underlined in recent COVID-19 research (Marzouki et al. 2021). Our results extend these arguments to the case of social emotion. Stigma and empathy (perspective-taking) can be considerably misrepresented or biased by fears (Sahoo et al. 2020; Alvi et al. 2020; Morrison et al. 2016).
Neuroscientific studies have suggested that social anxiety can be characterised by limbic and cognitive alterations, as well as biased interpretation of other peoples’ behaviours (Brühl et al. 2014; Miskovic and Schmidt 2012). Altered brain activity within the amygdala, insula, medial prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction (TPJ) is commonly reported in participants who viewed experimental stimuli (Brühl et al. 2014; Tei et al. 2014). During such empathic reactions, the affective experience can be augmented by activating the fear circuity, increasing overlap in self and other perspectives (affective empathy) or decreasing distinction between perspectives of self and others (cognitive empathy). Cognitive empathy differentiates perspective or emotion between oneself and social encounters to enable cognitive understanding of others’ viewpoints, thereby mitigating perspective or empathy bias (Alvi et al. 2020; Morrison et al. 2016).
Recent studies support the notion that flexibility and cognitive empathy might be essential for alleviating social anxiety (Eslinger et al. 2021; Clarke and Kiropoulos 2021). The brain-imaging study of OFC-related anxiety showed that feelings of distress were maladaptively amplified when people misinterpreted the feelings, perspectives or intentions of others (Tei et al. 2020). More specifically, the study compared OFC-related anxiety ratings with empathic disposition, cognitive flexibility and empathy-associated brain activity induced by viewing video clips of people who sang badly. The results showed that OFC-related anxiety scores were positively correlated with dispositional affective empathy (personal distress through emotion sharing) and amygdala activity; and negatively correlated with cognitive flexibility level and activity in the TPJ believed to support cognitive empathy and flexibility (Crone and Dahl 2012; Tei et al. 2019b; Shamay-Tsoory 2011).
Cognitive flexibility might also prompt a balanced viewing of inter-personal situations, which is subserved by cognitive (executive) functions (Uddin 2021; Robbins and Arnsten 2009). The abovementioned TPJ-related system in the brain can further support the shifting of perspective, thereby moderating self-centredness or egocentric bias (Soutschek et al. 2016). Effectively, cognitive flexibility subserves context-adjusted understanding of inter-group situations by facilitating a change in perspective or decision rules (Uddin 2021; Tei et al. 2017; Binney and Ramsey 2020). Based on the above literature, a conceptual model of fear-induced bias and flexibility is presented in this research (Fig. 1). This model shows that whereas social connections nurture empathy skills and social identity, social anxiety and conflicts can be developed primarily by a catastrophic cycle of miscommunication, fear-induced bias and maladaptive distress appraisals such as blame, guilt and anger. Meanwhile, cognitive flexibility may assuage these negative states by helping to disengage from the cycle.
a Cognitive development of empathy skills and social identity and (b) Fear-induced bias and flexibility. a Empathy skills and social identity may be nurtured by education and family/inter-personal connections, whereas they can also be affected by structural inequality in society. b Anxiety and conflict are characterised primarily by the catastrophic cycle of miscommunication, fear-induced bias and maladaptive distress appraisal. Meanwhile, cognitive flexibility may help disengage from the cycle.
Indeed, our fear-induced bias can enhance hazardous inter-group behaviours. Although social ties, fears and hypervigilance for one’s own health likely serve as innate, adaptive, survival-supporting mechanisms, they can also induce destructive stigmatisation or bias in patients and people belonging to particular groups (Chaimowitz et al. 2021; Gonzalez-Liencres et al. 2013). This was evident from the resurgence of xenophobia and offensive behaviour toward coronavirus evacuees and against any people who have been released from COVID-19 quarantine (Bavel et al. 2020; Ransing et al. 2020; The Guardian 2020). Peoples’ imaginary fears are easily created by cognitive bias; they can emphasise threats or blame toward out-groups (Lantos and Molenberghs 2021).
Thus, the current study might also be relevant to recent refugee and migration crises, globally developing fear, stigma and racial discrimination (Ellermann 2020; Bajaj and Stanford 2022), which recalls the earlier phase of COVID-19. Rather than polarised blaming, the pursuit of peace and tolerance might be supported by cultivating empathic and flexible mentalities.
The current study adds to previous research by exploring how people expressed feelings, thoughts or beliefs in response to a pandemic that has created a striking psychological and social impact, such as fear-induced bias. The results exposed disturbing and worrisome trends of human behaviour during the pandemic, which are probably linked to complex biopsychosocial factors. They also described the chaotic paths and outcomes that social ties and empathic conduct can produce in connection with out-group members when biased perceptions and beliefs about others are involved. Further empirical studies are required to uncover different layers of meaning that people cognitively disclose positively or mistakenly—beliefs about reality and the reality of others.
This study has three main limitations. First, the research method was based on a literature review on the subject with a narrative synthesis because the available evidence on OFC-related anxiety and inter-group conflicts was not yet suitable in the form of a meta-analytic review. Secondly, some studies considered were preprints and articles that have not yet been reviewed and may not be free of certain biases. Although possible bias cannot be discarded, every effort was made to minimise its possibility. Finally, as the pandemic is still emerging, conclusions cannot be drawn concerning the levels of hypothesised exacerbation of stigma-related anxiety and group conflicts worsened by fear-induced bias and reduced flexibility. There are probably still not enough empirical studies to evaluate the effect of different stigmatisations connected with social anxiety and hostility. Despite these limitations, the available materials show that certain vulnerable groups may have been underestimated and deprived of their qualities.
By investigating the psychological and societal consequences of the prevailing pandemic, this study recaptures the paradoxical double effect of social ties and empathic behaviour. In facing pervasive fear and uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic, the significance of social ties was globally described as a solid positive resource to reduce different kinds of concerns. However, social ties and empathy have also induced stigma-related anxiety, prejudice, and inter-group confrontation due to elevated in-group identity (sense of belonging), peer pressures or empathic distress. Shifting our attention to highlight context-adjusted perspectives and reciprocal dialogues seem essential to lessen these adverse effects. The subsequent mitigation of misunderstandings, fear-induced bias, and maladaptive distress appraisal may lead to more reasonable and flexible recognition of social ties. To this end, shedding more light on the underlying cognitive mechanisms of inter-group conflicts and exploring forms of flexibility can guide understanding (Lantos and Molenberghs 2021; Binney and Ramsey 2020) and help appease a variety of inter-group aggressions, promoting cooperation instead.
The practical implications of the results in this study are pertinent for scientists and policymakers that have to address and solve problems of escalating inter-group conflict and disruption. They can inform the planning of intervention programmes that seek to curtail the mental health impact of very critical situations, such as a pandemic. Furthermore, they can be useful to manage other global emergencies that also trigger and amplify insensitive behaviours, posing significant challenges for societies, e.g. refugee crises and the problem faced by displaced people. As fear and anxiety seem to be awakened by conditions that people tend to share, encouraging humanitarian bonds is becoming a more vital priority. However, practical ways of cultivating cognitive flexibility and more concrete solutions for what can foster a greater sense of social connectedness to facilitate social reconfiguration remain elusive. We hope this work serves to acknowledge awareness to search for ways to encourage cognitive flexibility and inter-group empathy, thereby stimulating humanitarian action, especially during these uncertain times of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors confirm that all data analysed during this study are included in this published article. Furthermore, data sources supporting the findings of this study were all publicly available at the time of submission.
Alvi T, Kouros CD, Lee J et al. (2020) Social anxiety is negatively associated with theory of mind and empathic accuracy. J Abnorm Psychol 129(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000493
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Bajaj SS, Stanford FC (2022) The Ukrainian refugee crisis and the pathology of racism. BMJ 376. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o661
Banerjee D, Rai M (2020) Social isolation in Covid-19: The impact of loneliness. Int J Soc Psychiatry 66(6):525–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020922269
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Banerjee D, Kosagisharaf JR, Rao TS (2021) The dual pandemic of suicide and COVID-19: A biopsychosocial narrative of risks and prevention. Psychiatry Res 113577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113577
Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS et al. (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav 4(5):460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Binney RJ, Ramsey R (2020) Social semantics: The role of conceptual knowledge and cognitive control in a neurobiological model of the social brain. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 112:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.030
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Biswas D, Chatterjee S, Sultana P (2021) Stigma and fear during COVID-19: Essentializing religion in an Indian context. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00808-8
Article Google Scholar
Bloom, P (2016) Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Harper Collins, New York
Brühl AB, Delsignore A, Komossa K et al. (2014) Neuroimaging in social anxiety disorder—A meta-analytic review resulting in a new neurofunctional model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 47:260–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.08.003
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C et al. (2003) Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 56:671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Chaimowitz GA, Upfold C, Géa LP et al. (2021) Stigmatization of psychiatric and justice-involved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 106:110150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110150
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Clarke E, Kiropoulos LA (2021) Mediating the relationship between neuroticism and depressive, anxiety and eating disorder symptoms: The role of intolerance of uncertainty and cognitive flexibility. J Affect Disord Rep 4:100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100101
Article Google Scholar
Crone EA, Dahl RE (2012) Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat Rev Neurosci 13(9):636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Daks JS, Peltz JS, Rogge RD (2020) Psychological flexibility and inflexibility as sources of resiliency and risk during a pandemic: Modeling the cascade of COVID-19 stress on family systems with a contextual behavioral science lens. J Context Behav Sci 18:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.08.003
Article Google Scholar
Dawson DL, Golijani-Moghaddam N (2020) COVID-19: Psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic. J Context Behav Sci 17:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.010
Article Google Scholar
Ellermann A (2020) Discrimination in migration and citizenship. J Ethn Migr Stud 46(12):2463–2479. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1561053
Article Google Scholar
Ellis WE, Dumas TM, Forbes LM (2020) Physically isolated but socially connected: Psychological adjustment and stress among adolescents during the initial COVID-19 crisis. Can J Behav Sci Rev Canadienne Sci Comport 52(3):177–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000215
Article Google Scholar
Eslinger PJ, Anders S, Ballarini T et al. (2021) The neuroscience of social feelings: Mechanisms of adaptive social functioning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 128:592–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.028
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Feldman R (2020) What is resilience: An affiliative neuroscience approach. World Psychiatry 19(2):132–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20729
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Fisher A, Roberts A, McKinlay AR et al. (2021) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and wellbeing of people living with a long-term physical health condition: a qualitative study (Unpublished medRxiv preprint). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.03.20243246
Fujino J, Tei S, Jankowski KF et al. (2017) Role of spontaneous brain activity in explicit and implicit aspects of cognitive flexibility under socially conflicting situations: a resting-state fMRI study using fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations. Neuroscience 367:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.10.025
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fujino J, Tei S, Itahashi T et al. (2020) Role of the right temporoparietal junction in inter-group bias in trust decisions. Hum Brain Mapp 41(6):1677–1688. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24903Ci
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Liencres C, Shamay-Tsoory SG, Brüne M (2013) Towards a neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37(8):1537–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Goyal K, Chauhan P, Chhikara K et al. (2020) Fear of COVID 2019: First suicidal case in India! Asian J Psychiatry 49:101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.101989
Article Google Scholar
Griffiths MD, Mamun MA (2020) COVID-19 suicidal behavior among couples and suicide pacts: Case study evidence from press reports. Psychiatry Res 289:113105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113105
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Holt-Lunstad J (2018) Why social relationships are important for physical health: A systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Annu Rev Psychol 69:437–458. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011902
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hornsey MJ, Chapman CM, Alvarez B et al. (2021) To what extent are conspiracy theorists concerned for self versus others? A COVID-19 test case. Eur J Soc Psychol 51(2):285–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2737
Article Google Scholar
Jeste DV, Lee EE, Cacioppo S (2020) Battling the modern behavioral epidemic of loneliness: suggestions for research and interventions. JAMA Psychiatry 77(6):553–554. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0027
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Jordan A, Allsop AS, Collins PY (2021) Decriminalising being black with mental illness. Lancet Psychiat 8(1):8–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30519-8
Article Google Scholar
Kato TA, Sartorius N, Shinfuku N (2020) Forced social isolation due to COVID-19 and consequent mental health problems: lessons from hikikomori. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 74(9):506–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13112
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kroska EB, Roche AI, Adamowicz JL, Stegall MS (2020) Psychological flexibility in the context of COVID-19 adversity: Associations with distress. J Context. Behav Sci 18:28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.011
Article Google Scholar
Lam ME (2021) United by the global COVID-19 pandemic: divided by our values and viral identities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00679-5
Article Google Scholar
Lantos D, Molenberghs P (2021) The neuroscience of inter-group threat and violence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 131:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.025
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lees J, Cikara M (2021) Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 376(1822):20200143. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0143
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Lewis-Fernández R, Kirmayer LJ (2019) Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: Understanding symptom experience and expression in context. Transcult Psychiatry 56(4):786–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461519861795
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Mamun MA, Griffiths MD (2020) First COVID-19 suicide case in Bangladesh due to fear of COVID-19 and xenophobia: possible suicide prevention strategies. Asian J Psychiatry 51:102073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102073
Article Google Scholar
Marzouki Y, Aldossari FS, Veltri GA (2021) Understanding the buffering effect of social media use on anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00724-x
Article Google Scholar
Mathur VA, Harada T, Lipke T et al. (2010) Neural basis of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation. NeuroImage 51(4):1468–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.025
Article PubMed Google Scholar
May T, Aughterson H, Fancourt D et al. (2021) ‘Stressed, uncomfortable, vulnerable, neglected’: A qualitative study of the psychological and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK frontline keyworkers. SocArXirv Papers (Preprint) https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/dn43c
McCurry J (2020) From near disaster to success story: How Japan has tackled coronavirus. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/22/from-near-disaster-to-success-story-how-japan-has-tackled-coronavirus. Accessed 28 May 2020
Meșterelu I, Rîmbu R, Blaga P et al. (2021) Obsessive-compulsive symptoms and reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res 302:114021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114021
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Miskovic V, Schmidt LA (2012) Social fearfulness in the human brain. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36(1):459–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.08.002
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement Syst Rev 4(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Montemurro N (2020) The emotional impact of COVID-19: From medical staff to common people. Brain Behav Immun 87:23–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.032
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Morrison AS, Mateen MA, Brozovich FA et al. (2016) Empathy for positive and negative emotions in social anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther 87:232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.10.005
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Osaki T (2020) Japan’s ‘virus vigilantes’ take on rule-breakers and invaders. The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/13/national/coronavirus-vigilantes-japan/ Accessed 30 May 2020
Parker K, Mounk Y (2020) Authoritarian populists have six classic moves. Trump’s response to COVID-19 uses five of them. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/trumps-authoritarian-covid/ Accessed 30 May 2020
Prinz J (2011) Against empathy. South J Philos 49(s1):214–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00069.x
Article Google Scholar
Ransing R, Ramalho R, de Filippis R et al. (2020) Infectious disease outbreak related stigma and discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: Drivers, facilitators, manifestations, and outcomes across the world. Brain Behav Immun 89:555–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.07.033
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Robbins TW, Arnsten AF (2009) The neuropsychopharmacology of fronto-executive function: monoaminergic modulation. Annu Rev Neurosci 32:267–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135535
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Rubin R (2020) First it was masks; now some refuse testing for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 324(20):2015–2016. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.22003
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Saeed F, Mihan R, Mousavi SZ et al. (2020) A narrative review of stigma related to infectious disease outbreaks: what can be learned in the face of the covid-19 pandemic? Front Psychiatry 11:565919. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.565919
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Sahoo S, Mehra A, Suri V et al. (2020) Lived experiences of the corona survivors (patients admitted in COVID wards): A narrative real-life documented summaries of internalized guilt, shame, stigma, anger. Asian J Psychiatry 53:102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102187
Article Google Scholar
Shamay-Tsoory SG (2011) The neural bases for empathy. Neuroscientist 17(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M (2020) Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 323(21):2133–2134. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5893
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shanahan L, Steinhoff A, Bechtiger L et al. (2020) Emotional distress in young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence of risk and resilience from a longitudinal cohort study. Psychol Med 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172000241X
Shelus VS, Frank SC, Lazard AJ et al. (2020) Motivations and barriers for the use of face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic: messaging insights from focus groups. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(24):9298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249298
Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
Simas EN, Clifford S, Kirkland JH (2020) How empathic concern fuels political polarization. Am Polit Sci Rev 114(1):258–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000534
Article Google Scholar
Soutschek A, Ruff CC, Strombach T et al. (2016) Brain stimulation reveals crucial role of overcoming self-centeredness in self-control. Sci Adv 2(10):e1600992. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600992
Article PubMed Central ADS PubMed Google Scholar
Tangney JP (ed) (2012) Self-conscious emotions. In: Leary MR, Tangney JP (eds) Handbook of self and identity. Guilford Press, New York
Tei S, Becker C, Kawada R et al. (2014) Can we predict burnout severity from empathy-related brain activity? Transl Psychiatry 4:e393. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2014.34
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Tei S, Fujino J, Kawada R et al. (2017) Collaborative roles of temporoparietal junction and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in different types of behavioural flexibility. Sci Rep 7(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06662-6
Article CAS Google Scholar
Tei S, Fujino J, Itahashi T et al. (2019a) Egocentric biases and atypical generosity in autistic individuals. Autism Res 12(11):1598–1608. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2130
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Tei S, Kauppi JP, Fujino J et al. (2019b) Inter-subject correlation of temporoparietal junction activity is associated with conflict patterns during flexible decision-making. Neurosci Res 144:67–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2018.07.006
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Tei S, Kauppi JP, Jankowski KF et al. (2020) Brain and behavioral alterations in subjects with social anxiety dominated by empathic embarrassment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(8):4385–4391. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918081117
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Tei S, Wu HY (2021) Historical reflection on Taijin-kyōfushō during COVID-19: A global phenomenon of social anxiety? Hist Philos Life Sci 43(2):60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00392-9
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Thakur V, Jain A (2020) COVID 2019-suicides: A global psychological pandemic. Brain Behav Immun 88:952–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.062
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Throop CJ, Zahavi D (2020) Dark and bright empathy: Phenomenological and anthropological reflections. Curr Anthropol 61(3):283–303. https://doi.org/10.1086/708844
Article Google Scholar
The Guardian (2020) Ukraine: Violent clashes as locals hurl stones at coronavirus evacuees’ bus. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/20/ukraine-protesters-clash-with-police-over-coronavirus-evacuees. Accessed 20 Feb 2020
Trudgill DIN, Gorey KM, Donnelly EA (2020) Prevalent posttraumatic stress disorder among emergency department personnel: rapid systematic review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7:89. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00584-x
Article Google Scholar
Uddin LQ (2021) Cognitive and behavioural flexibility: Neural mechanisms and clinical considerations. Nat Rev Neurosci 22(3):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00428-w
Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Wasike A (2020) Kenya police kill more during curfew than COVID-19. Anadolu Agency. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/kenya-police-kill-more-during-curfew-than-covid 19/1807930 Accessed 30 May 2020
Download references
The authors wish to thank the audiences of recent talks given by the authors, which helped to develop the ideas presented. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (21K07544, 20K16654).
Kyoto University, Department of Psychiatry, Kyoto, Japan
Shisei Tei & Junya Fujino
Waseda University, Institute of Applied Brain Sciences, Saitama, Japan
Shisei Tei
Tokyo International University, School of Human and Social Sciences, Saitama, Japan
Shisei Tei
Showa University, Medical Institute of Developmental Disabilities Research, Tokyo, Japan
Junya Fujino
Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Tokyo, Japan
Junya Fujino
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Shisei Tei or Junya Fujino.
The authors declare no competing interests.
The study was granted exemption from requiring ethics approval, because it is a review article about knowledge management and production processes.
This research does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions
Tei, S., Fujino, J. Social ties, fears and bias during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fragile and flexible mindsets. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 202 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01210-8
Download citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01210-8
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Scientific Reports (2022)
Collection
Advertisement
© 2022 Springer Nature Limited
