Expanding the Circle: One virus, two worlds
2020 was a hellish year. From the coronavirus pandemic, to confronting the insidious presence of white supremacy in the US, to a turbulent, polarizing, and violent election cycle; it is difficult to remember another year in my lifetime that was marked by such raw, confusing, and painful experiences. As we start on the first leg of 2021, we continue to be flogged with reminders of how far we are from resolving the divisions and systemic inequities in our country that 2020 unveiled. As much as we wished to wake up in January to find out 2020 was just a transient nightmare, we are rather finding it to be an unescapable reality. While many hope that recent shifts in political power will help to facilitate the systemic changes that are needed to recover as a society, there is also fear that our ideological divisions as a country are insurmountable.
While it is difficult to represent the array of different perspectives that currently exist in the US, one theme that has run throughout these tensions is the differing interpretation of freedom with regard to self versus other. Whether it be coronavirus, white supremacy, the presidential election, or some mixture, individuals generally fall on one of two sides—believing that the government should prioritize their own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness versus others’ (all peoples’) rights to these virtues.
With regard to the coronavirus pandemic, the focus of this article, this division is maybe best epitomized by compliance with mask wearing and social distancing recommendations. Those who have a more self-focused understanding of freedom experience mask wearing and social distancing recommendations as infringing on their civil rights (e.g., it should be my right to risk my health), where those who are more other focused see the refusal to wear masks and social distance as infringing on others’ civil rights (e.g., its people’s right to not have others threaten their health). Certainly, this is a simplification, and there are many aspects of lived experience that contribute to any one person’s opinion. However, as I believe any relationally oriented psychologist would agree, it does seem that the only way to repair the ruptures we currently face as a society is to navigate differing needs for agency and communion.
With this in mind, our lab at Michigan State University (MSU) became interested in exploring whether individual’s self-other orientations were associated with their behavioral responses to coronavirus. In particular, we wanted to examine the degree to which interpersonal styles and tendencies to mentalize self and other were associated with individual’s compliance with CDC and state-level recommendations for preventing the spread of coronavirus.
Our sample included 517 undergraduate students recruited from introductory courses in psychology at MSU as part of a larger study. The average age of participants was 19.45 years old (SD = 1.22) and ranged from 18 to 23. The sample predominately identified as cis-gender female (68%) and heterosexual (88%). The sample was 66% White, 11% Black, 9% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Bi-racial, 4% Non-white Hispanic, and 3% from other racial categories. All data for this study was collected between March 30th and April 26th, 2020.
All participants completed the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex (IIP-SC), and several measures or mentalization. For the sake of brevity, I will only discuss the results from the Mentalization Scale (MentS), which conceptualizes mentalization in terms of three factors, 1) Self mentalization—one’s ability to reflect on the connection between one’s internal experiences and their behavior, 2) Other mentalization—one’s ability to reflect on the connection between others’ internal experiences and their behavior, and 3) Motivation—one’s values and motivation for attending to the internal experiences of self and other. Additionally, participants completed two items from a larger questionnaire that was developed to examine participant’s concern about coronavirus and the degree that they were engaging behaviors recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (e.g., “shelter-at-home”; social-distancing; hand washing) to help prevent the spread of coronavirus. The first item asked participants to indicate any CDC recommended behavior that they were engaging in. The list of behaviors included, 1) using social distancing (e.g., staying 6-feet apart), 2) not gathering in groups larger than 10 individuals, 3) not leaving the house except for essential work, activities, 4) hand-washing frequently, and 5) only using online/ phone/text communication with anyone living outside their household. The second item asked participants to rate the overall degree (i.e., how much) their behavior changed due to concern about coronavirus.
Results indicated that elevation and style of interpersonal problems were associated with individuals’ tendency to engage in CDC recommended behavior. In particular, elevation on the IIP-SC was associated with less likelihood to follow recommendations to gather in groups of 10 individuals or less, and practice handwashing several times per day. Individual’s with more dominant interpersonal styles also tended to report ignoring CDC recommendations, including staying home except for essential activities, handwashing multiple times per day, and using online/phone/text communication with those outside their household. However, individuals with interpersonally warm styles tended to report following CDC regulations around social distancing, limiting gathering to 10 people or less, staying home except for essential activities, and using online/phone/text communication with those living outside their household. Interpersonal warmth was also the only IIP-SC parameter that was associated with ratings of overall behavior change. Those with warmer styles indicated a greater degree of behavior change in response to coronavirus.
A somewhat similar pattern of results was found when examining the association between mentalization and behavioral responses to coronavirus. Self-mentalization was not associated with following any of the CDC recommendations. However, both other-mentalization and motivation to mentalize were associated with following all of the CDC recommendations. Additionally, both other-mentalization and motivation to mentalize were associated with a greater change in behavior overall in response to coronavirus, whereas self-mentalization was not associated with degree of behavior change.
These initial results are consistent the notion that individual’s self-other orientations affect whether they engage in behavior to prevent the spread of coronavirus. However, it is important to acknowledge that the generalizability of these results is limited due to the homogeneity of the sample that we examined. Additionally, I regret that we did not assess mask-wearing behavior in our measure given how much it has become a symbol of the divisions in surrounding coronavirus. Admittedly, when we developed the measure back in March 2020 we had no idea what the pandemic would bring. We were mostly aware that college students were continuing to visibly gather in bars and at house parties, despite the university suspending all in-person activities.
Even with these limitations, it is interesting to consider how these findings help us to understand, and potentially intervene on, the divisions that exist in the US around coronavirus. For those who are interested in motivating “anti-maskers” to change their ways, an initial read of these results may suggest that getting “anti-maskers” to mentalize others may be an avenue for change. However, this appears to be the direction that mask wearing advocates have taken already and there are many still ignoring mask wearing recommendations. Take for example the American Hospital Association (AHA) encourages individuals to post messages to their social media such as “#WearAMask for your friends, family, neighbors and teachers…”, or the CDC who encourages sharing messages such as “Wondering how you can help you friends stay safe this summer? #WearAMask…”. However, complementarity may help explain why this strategy has not been fully effective for changing mask-wearing behavior. If interpersonal dominance is associated with ignoring coronavirus prevention behaviors, restrictions encouraging mask-wearing will be experienced as anti-complementary by such individuals. Further the emotional disruption that comes from anti-complementary exchanges may foster defensiveness and impair mentalization. This in turn may make it even more difficult motivate “anti-maskers” to wear masks.
Given the potential agency needs of “anti-maskers”, I wonder whether it would be more fruitful to 1) develop advocacy for mask-wearing that aligns with a dominant- or self-orientation, and/or 2) find ways for such individuals to have their agency needs met outside of mask-wearing. While it is likely that there is no single solution, these may be starting points for addressing the differing needs for agency and communion that likely underlie the divisions in coronavirus prevention behaviors in the United States.
While it is difficult to represent the array of different perspectives that currently exist in the US, one theme that has run throughout these tensions is the differing interpretation of freedom with regard to self versus other. Whether it be coronavirus, white supremacy, the presidential election, or some mixture, individuals generally fall on one of two sides—believing that the government should prioritize their own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness versus others’ (all peoples’) rights to these virtues.
With regard to the coronavirus pandemic, the focus of this article, this division is maybe best epitomized by compliance with mask wearing and social distancing recommendations. Those who have a more self-focused understanding of freedom experience mask wearing and social distancing recommendations as infringing on their civil rights (e.g., it should be my right to risk my health), where those who are more other focused see the refusal to wear masks and social distance as infringing on others’ civil rights (e.g., its people’s right to not have others threaten their health). Certainly, this is a simplification, and there are many aspects of lived experience that contribute to any one person’s opinion. However, as I believe any relationally oriented psychologist would agree, it does seem that the only way to repair the ruptures we currently face as a society is to navigate differing needs for agency and communion.
With this in mind, our lab at Michigan State University (MSU) became interested in exploring whether individual’s self-other orientations were associated with their behavioral responses to coronavirus. In particular, we wanted to examine the degree to which interpersonal styles and tendencies to mentalize self and other were associated with individual’s compliance with CDC and state-level recommendations for preventing the spread of coronavirus.
Our sample included 517 undergraduate students recruited from introductory courses in psychology at MSU as part of a larger study. The average age of participants was 19.45 years old (SD = 1.22) and ranged from 18 to 23. The sample predominately identified as cis-gender female (68%) and heterosexual (88%). The sample was 66% White, 11% Black, 9% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Bi-racial, 4% Non-white Hispanic, and 3% from other racial categories. All data for this study was collected between March 30th and April 26th, 2020.
All participants completed the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex (IIP-SC), and several measures or mentalization. For the sake of brevity, I will only discuss the results from the Mentalization Scale (MentS), which conceptualizes mentalization in terms of three factors, 1) Self mentalization—one’s ability to reflect on the connection between one’s internal experiences and their behavior, 2) Other mentalization—one’s ability to reflect on the connection between others’ internal experiences and their behavior, and 3) Motivation—one’s values and motivation for attending to the internal experiences of self and other. Additionally, participants completed two items from a larger questionnaire that was developed to examine participant’s concern about coronavirus and the degree that they were engaging behaviors recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (e.g., “shelter-at-home”; social-distancing; hand washing) to help prevent the spread of coronavirus. The first item asked participants to indicate any CDC recommended behavior that they were engaging in. The list of behaviors included, 1) using social distancing (e.g., staying 6-feet apart), 2) not gathering in groups larger than 10 individuals, 3) not leaving the house except for essential work, activities, 4) hand-washing frequently, and 5) only using online/ phone/text communication with anyone living outside their household. The second item asked participants to rate the overall degree (i.e., how much) their behavior changed due to concern about coronavirus.
Results indicated that elevation and style of interpersonal problems were associated with individuals’ tendency to engage in CDC recommended behavior. In particular, elevation on the IIP-SC was associated with less likelihood to follow recommendations to gather in groups of 10 individuals or less, and practice handwashing several times per day. Individual’s with more dominant interpersonal styles also tended to report ignoring CDC recommendations, including staying home except for essential activities, handwashing multiple times per day, and using online/phone/text communication with those outside their household. However, individuals with interpersonally warm styles tended to report following CDC regulations around social distancing, limiting gathering to 10 people or less, staying home except for essential activities, and using online/phone/text communication with those living outside their household. Interpersonal warmth was also the only IIP-SC parameter that was associated with ratings of overall behavior change. Those with warmer styles indicated a greater degree of behavior change in response to coronavirus.
A somewhat similar pattern of results was found when examining the association between mentalization and behavioral responses to coronavirus. Self-mentalization was not associated with following any of the CDC recommendations. However, both other-mentalization and motivation to mentalize were associated with following all of the CDC recommendations. Additionally, both other-mentalization and motivation to mentalize were associated with a greater change in behavior overall in response to coronavirus, whereas self-mentalization was not associated with degree of behavior change.
These initial results are consistent the notion that individual’s self-other orientations affect whether they engage in behavior to prevent the spread of coronavirus. However, it is important to acknowledge that the generalizability of these results is limited due to the homogeneity of the sample that we examined. Additionally, I regret that we did not assess mask-wearing behavior in our measure given how much it has become a symbol of the divisions in surrounding coronavirus. Admittedly, when we developed the measure back in March 2020 we had no idea what the pandemic would bring. We were mostly aware that college students were continuing to visibly gather in bars and at house parties, despite the university suspending all in-person activities.
Even with these limitations, it is interesting to consider how these findings help us to understand, and potentially intervene on, the divisions that exist in the US around coronavirus. For those who are interested in motivating “anti-maskers” to change their ways, an initial read of these results may suggest that getting “anti-maskers” to mentalize others may be an avenue for change. However, this appears to be the direction that mask wearing advocates have taken already and there are many still ignoring mask wearing recommendations. Take for example the American Hospital Association (AHA) encourages individuals to post messages to their social media such as “#WearAMask for your friends, family, neighbors and teachers…”, or the CDC who encourages sharing messages such as “Wondering how you can help you friends stay safe this summer? #WearAMask…”. However, complementarity may help explain why this strategy has not been fully effective for changing mask-wearing behavior. If interpersonal dominance is associated with ignoring coronavirus prevention behaviors, restrictions encouraging mask-wearing will be experienced as anti-complementary by such individuals. Further the emotional disruption that comes from anti-complementary exchanges may foster defensiveness and impair mentalization. This in turn may make it even more difficult motivate “anti-maskers” to wear masks.
Given the potential agency needs of “anti-maskers”, I wonder whether it would be more fruitful to 1) develop advocacy for mask-wearing that aligns with a dominant- or self-orientation, and/or 2) find ways for such individuals to have their agency needs met outside of mask-wearing. While it is likely that there is no single solution, these may be starting points for addressing the differing needs for agency and communion that likely underlie the divisions in coronavirus prevention behaviors in the United States.