Nature's “responsible” response to disease: With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been global calls for the implementation of “social distancing” to control transmission. Throughout the world, some have resisted this requirement with the unfounded argument that it is unnecessary or ineffective. Social distancing, however, is a natural consequence of disease across animals, both human and nonhuman. Stockmaier et al. reviewed responses to disease across animal taxa and reveal how these responses naturally limit disease transmission. Understanding such natural responses and their impacts on pathogenic transmission provides epidemiological insight into our own responses to pandemic challenges. Science , this issue p. eabc8881

Classic theories of stress and health are largely based on assumptions regarding how different psychosocial stressors influence biological processes that, in turn, affect human health and behavior. Although theoretically rich, this work has yielded little consensus and led to numerous conceptual, measurement, and reproducibility issues. Social Safety Theory aims to address these issues by using the primary goal and regulatory logic of the human brain and immune system as the basis for specifying the social-environmental situations to which these systems should respond most strongly to maximize reproductive success and survival. This analysis gave rise to the integrated, multi-level formulation described herein, which transforms thinking about stress biology and provides a biologically based, evolutionary account for how and why experiences of social safety and social threat are strongly related to health, well-being, aging, and longevity. In doing so, the theory advances a testable framework for investigating the biopsychosocial roots of health disparities as well as how health-relevant biopsychosocial processes crystalize over time and how perceptions of the social environment interact with childhood microbial environment, birth cohort, culture, air pollution, genetics, sleep, diet, personality, and self-harm to affect health. The theory also highlights several interventions for reducing social threat and promoting resilience.

Sickness behavior is an evolutionarily conserved phenomenon found across a diverse range of animals involving a change in motivational priorities to theoretically maximize energetic investment in immune function and recovery. Typical components of sickness behavior include reduced sociability and activity, changes in diet, and depressed affect. Importantly, however, sickness behavior appears to be subject to other demands of life history in animal models, including reproduction and offspring survival. Thus, “feeling sick” is often context dependent with possible effects on morbidity and mortality. While humans may not always face the same life history trade-offs, sociocultural norms and values may similarly shape sickness behavior by establishing internalized parameters for “socially appropriate sickness.” We explore the role of these factors in shaping sickness behavior by surveying a national U.S. sample (n = 1,259). Self-reported and recalled sickness behavior was measured using the SicknessQ instrument, which has previously been validated against experimentally induced sickness behavior. After post-stratification weighting and correction for Type I error, generalized linear models showed that sickness behavior is significantly affected by various factors across sex and racial/ethnic groupings. Income below the national mean (b = 1.85, adj. p = 0.025), stoic endurance of pain and discomfort (b = 1.61, adj. p < 0.001), and depressive symptomology (b = 0.53, adj. p < 0.001) were each associated with greater sickness behavior scores. Familism (b = 1.59, adj. p = 0.008) was positively associated with sickness behavior in men, but not women. Endurance of pain and discomfort was associated with greater sickness behavior in Whites only (b = 1.94, adj. p = 0.002), while familism approached significance in African Americans only (b = 1.86, adj. p = 0.057). These findings may reflect different social contexts of sickness across demographic groups, which may in turn have important implications for pathogen transmission and recovery times, potentially contributing to health disparities.

This paper calls for increased attention to the ways in which immune function – including its behavioral aspects – are responsive to social contexts at multiple levels. Psychoneuroimmunology has demonstrated that the quantity and quality of social connections can affect immune responses, while newer research is finding that sickness temporarily affects these same social networks and that some aspects of culture can potentially “get under the skin” to affect inflammatory responses. Social immunology, the research framework proposed here, unifies these findings and also considers the effects of structural factors – that is, a society's economic, political, and environmental landscape – on exposure to pathogens and subsequent immune responses. As the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, a holistic understanding of the effects of social contexts on the patterning of morbidity and mortality is critically important. Social immunology provides such a framework and can highlight important risk factors related to impaired immune function.