While most people understand the dangers of taking risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are throwing caution to the wind in situations where we could be more careful.
Drive past any restaurant in Glenhazel, Sandton, or Sea Point, and it’s obvious that this includes many members of our own community. What are the psychological reasons for this, and how can we enforce stricter codes of conduct?
“People are fatigued. They are tired, bored, and stuck, and it’s hard to stay in a state of anticipatory anxiety,” says Judith Ancer, a clinical psychologist in practice in Johannesburg. “Worse, there’s little clarity about the size of the issue and what’s really happening. In South Africa in particular, unless one is directly affected, many people didn’t perceive it to be as serious as it was made out to be.
“Just like people choose not to wear seat belts or have safe sex even though they know there is evidence that this can protect them, in this case, it’s also very hard to affect behavioural change. Our capacity for denial means that people feel it won’t happen to them.”
In addition, people are suspicious of the motives of leaders, and, “If you don’t trust, you don’t listen. For young people in particular, we know that the brains of teens and young adults are primed to value reward over risk. So they go for the ‘reward’ of partying, seeing people, and feeling normal, even if it puts them or others at risk,” says Ancer. However she notes that it’s not only young people who are taking risks – people in all age groups are doing so, even those middle aged and older.
Ancer surmises that it would be difficult to enforce another hard lockdown in South Africa, “unless bodies were piling up and intensive-care units were full. In the absence of a ‘great catastrophic event’, people are just too cynical. We essentially don’t operate on facts, but on emotion and fear.”
While the virus is expected to be in our lives for an extended period, “There is some psychological value in learning to live with it rather than cloistering ourselves. This means to live sensibly, take precautions, and not give in to peer pressure.”
She has heard people say they were at gatherings where no one was wearing a mask, so they removed their own, even if it made them feel uncomfortable – and they did it to make others comfortable. “You shouldn’t have to apologise for keeping safe and keeping your loved ones safe. Just like not getting into a car with a drunk driver, people need to have the courage to speak up, do what’s right, and not be shamed or seen as neurotic and paranoid.”
Finally, Ancer notes that, “It’s hard and painful to imagine risk. We all need a level of ‘healthy denial’, otherwise we will be paralysed by fear that disaster is around the next corner. It’s a natural human instinct that gets us through.”
Dr Shana Saffer, a Johannesburg psychiatrist, agrees with Ancer that “there are two huge motivators responsible for people behaving as they do: fear and denial. Fear of death and contamination motivate people to act with caution. Denial encourages people to act callously or impulsively. If you introduce other motivators, such as scientific evidence and trust in people who supposedly have the knowledge and experience, it leads to an ‘informed’ decision-making strategy rather than more impulsive behaviour.
“As with any serious threat, when the trigger is witnessed and tangible, one tends to treat it with appropriate caution,” she says. “When people don’t see or feel danger, their behaviour changes accordingly. Even with a serious threat still around, it’s still possible to start to behave less cautiously. We adapt to a situation that has no end in sight.”
According to her, this adaption is a “neuropsychological behavioural response. On a basic level, it can be explained with smell – when one enters a place with an extremely displeasing smell, the instinct is to run away. But if one is forced to stay, after a while one doesn’t notice the smell, and isn’t affronted by it.
“This is because we undergo a biological mechanism called ‘down regulation’. Basically the ‘severity’ of the environmental threat becomes ‘downplayed’ en route to the brain because it’s something that’s not going away. There is less urgency required, and the central nervous system is informed of this.”
Saffer points out that being on high alert has caused secondary medical and mental-health issues. “The incidence of suicide attempts has risen threefold in certain studies. Added to the decreased ease of releasing tension through usual methods – like gym, sport, and socialising – ultimately the tendency is to adapt.”
There are, of course, many who are being vigilant for the greater good, and many who don’t want others to suffer the way that they or their families have suffered. But for those who are letting down their guard, setting short-term goals or enforcing compliance within certain time periods or spaces is one way to encourage them to remain vigilant.
Psychologically, what would motivate people to be more careful at this stage? “It depends where one is personally in consciousness and belief, and whether the ‘ask’ is in line with or contrary to ‘group psychology’,” says Saffer.
“On an individual level, actions are reinforced when they lead to either positive outcomes or avoidance of punishment. This is basic ‘reward’ psychology – even lab rats easily learn to push a lever for a treat, or to avoid an electric shock.”
She therefore suggests using incentives as a way to enforce compliance. This is something that communities or families could take on, and is a positive way of ensuring long-term behavioural change as the pandemic continues with no end in sight.
Otherwise, a punishment of sorts could work effectively, if it’s enforced by those in authority. “When one can break rules with no consequence, there’s zero incentive for most people to follow,” she says.
A moral or ethical appeal doesn’t always work because of what is known as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which shows that people must have their most basic needs met before considering ethical obligations. So, if people are concerned about having enough money to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table, they are unlikely to care about changing their behaviour for the sake of others.
“Even in a society where basic survival isn’t an issue, how many people recycle over concern for future generations? How many put community or common interest before themselves and their immediate reward, or even consider a personal future reward over a present desire?” asks Saffer rhetorically.
“It comes down to different levels of personal consciousness. For the most part, people are law-abiding or socially responsible and will abide by rules. Essentially, people find their own internal compass of what works for them individually, and what is socially acceptable in their community.”
While religious communities can play a role in enforcing compliance, they also “may choose not to act in accordance with a rule if it conflicts with the belief or moral value of the group”, says Saffer. This is why it’s important that the community tries to encourage compliance as part of community culture, and that those in authority lead by example.
