There is not much research about chronic exposure to mortality. Most experiments have people think about death for just a few minutes at most before measuring the variable of interest. Right now, one might say that there is a sort of chronic mortality salience happening around the globe. Can you tell us about the kind of effects this coronavirus pandemic might be having, and how it differs from what happens in the lab?

When I think about the coronavirus pandemic, I think about what we know about how death awareness impacts motivation. We know that it has the following two distinct effects:

First, we know that when people consciously think about mortality, and it’s in their focal attention, they can use logic and reasoning to try to problem solve about it. So when it comes to the coronavirus: we listen to our public health officials, we do social distancing, we use hand sanitizer, we donate N95 masks to hospitals, we follow stay-at-home orders, and so on, all of which are attempts to logically address this very real threat of pandemic-based mortality.

Second, we know that when people are not consciously thinking about mortality anymore, they no longer wield their logical reasoning. Instead, they attempt to live up to salient cultural standards and values because doing so reduces death anxiety in a different way, by enabling them to feel like they’re a person of value in a seemingly permanent and enduring system of meaning.

There are several kinds of defensive responses we see in response to COVID, with prosocial behaviors on the one hand (e.g. neighbors helping neighbors), and antisocial behaviors (e.g., xenophobia) on the other. Do you have thoughts about what determines when each is most likely to occur?

Underlying awareness of mortality leads to an increase in efforts to live up to our culture. So the question is: what are the salient cultural standards and values in any given moment? When our national identities are particularly salient, this might motivate us to defend and affirm those identities and that might be (in part) why we’ve been hearing reports about some heightened ethnic prejudice during this pandemic. But when other, perhaps more prosocial, cultural standards and values are salient—such as the values of education and compassion—then the nonconscious awareness of mortality can motivate us to live up to those values by being more open-minded, more helpful, and so on. This latter process might be why we are also hearing heartwarming stories about people being generally patient and helpful and compassionate toward each other in this new normal.

In the lab, researchers often specifically draw conscious attention to our mortality, or deliberately observe when mortality is outside of our conscious awareness. But with the coronavirus pandemic, we have a different situation because it’s causing a chronic/prolonged exposure to mortality-related concepts, so we’re likely oscillating between conscious and non-conscious awareness of death. We’re consciously thinking about death-related concepts at so many different times throughout the day that mortality concerns are probably also remaining non-consciously active, even at times when we are not consciously thinking about it.

What role does the news play in helping or hurting people’s sense of control and ability to cope, and how can people strike a balance between getting the news and managing their fear response to it?

There many different answers for many different news sources, but my overall impression is that mainstream TV and radio have been doing a nice job of both presenting information about the concrete mortality-related threat of the coronavirus pandemic and then closely following it up with step-by-step instructions for logical, reasonable ways to mitigate that threat (e.g. social distancing, using soap and sanitizer, staying at home, working remotely, limiting any unnecessary travel, etc.). That’s probably a productive strategy to actually mitigate the risk of disaster (e.g., “flatten the curve”), and could help reduce any manifest anxiety and lack of control that might have otherwise emerged if we were simply made aware of the pandemic but offered nothing to do about it.

We’re consciously thinking about death-related concepts so frequently throughout the day that mortality concerns are probably also remaining non-consciously active, even at times when we are not consciously thinking about it.

In contrast, in the cases where media sources discuss the pandemic, but don’t provide any meaningful instructions about how to reduce the risk, people might seek to mitigate anxiety and restore their sense of control by perceiving that the threat is localized (e.g., originating from Asia, carried by Asians) and thus controllable (e.g., via discriminatory behaviors or policies). Or, if the threat itself can’t be controlled, people might try to at least manage the fallout by doomsday-prepping (e.g., stock-piling sanitary products and nonperishable foods).

On the more positive side, as technology helps shrink the world and makes it easier and quicker to travel and send information around the world, journalists in the foreign and domestic press are able to bring together public health information from around the globe, make sense of it in a broader context, and deliver it to us in real time. In the process, they make us aware of how interconnected we all are and how the coronavirus pandemic is an existential concern that threatens every one of us—across cities, states, countries, and continents. That’s important because we know from existential social psychology research that when people are focused on widespread natural disasters (e.g., global climate change) that emphasize broader social identities (e.g., all of humanity), awareness of mortality can motivate intergroup cooperation and international peace building. So, the fact that many, if not all, of the coronavirus news stories emphasize that this is a global pandemic serves to make salient our broadest social identity: a deeply interconnected human race. This may break down some of our typical intergroup dividing lines and bend the arc of our existential motivation toward support for peaceful and beneficial international cooperation as we recognize that we’re all in this together.

The pandemic highlights the importance of embracing both education and compassion.

If you could give some general advice based on your knowledge of human behavior, what would you say to Americans at this time? What, if any, are some helpful strategies for reducing fear and remaining level-headed in the face of what is a very real threat?

I think the pandemic highlights the importance of embracing both education and compassion. At an individual level, we all of course have to manage our immediate psychological experiences to stay cool in the face of uncertainty and fear. It’s probably worthwhile for each of us to take advantage of this prolonged conscious awareness of our mortality and spend some time reflecting on what really matters in life. Although there is not a lot of research on this particular topic, some of the available data seem to suggest that repeated conscious contemplation of death can cause people to reappraise and perhaps even change some of what they value in life—to move away from things like wealth, fame, physical attractiveness, and to instead more strongly value things like personal growth, positive interpersonal relationships, and giving back to our communities.

According to the models, the virus will spread to your neighbors, your loved ones, and eventually to you, and it could take your life or the lives of the people you know and love. If that sort of loss were heading your way in the near future, even if the exact time were uncertain, would that change what you care about, how you spend your time, or what you want to leave behind you for the people you love?

At a macro level I think it’s useful to keep in mind that it’s the science-literate segments of our society versed in medicine and public health who are providing the most accurate appraisals of this widespread existential threat, and calmly and compassionately leading us through it. In the short term, I imagine it would be useful for us to more strongly support those existing segments of society (e.g., scientists, doctors, engineers). In the long term it similarly seems useful to support policy that guarantees advanced educational experiences to every one of our young people so we can expand and strengthen those segments of society for the benefit of the common good. Perhaps society will eventually move away from the complacent status quo that failed to adequately deal with this pandemic, and instead build a society that more strongly values education and vigorously applies knowledge to compassion. In this demon-haunted world, as Carl Sagan argued, it would be beneficial for society to continue to pursue its compassionate goals while holding up science as its candle in the dark. It would be nice to see us learn to prefer to know as much as we can about the world we live in, and apply that knowledge to relieve suffering, improve lives, and leave the world a better place.