The Psychosocial Fuzziness of Fear in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Era and the Role of Robots

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted much research on the possible use of robots in different areas of intervention. One of them is related to the deployment of social robots to cope with different needs elicited by and depending on the emergency. According to a recent article published in Science (Yang et al., 2020, p. 1) “social robots could be deployed to provide continued social interactions and adherence to treatment regimens without fear of spreading disease.” In this context, social isolation and quarantine—often significantly prolonged due to the duration of the infection—have plausibly exerted a negative impact on well-being and perhaps mental health, whose jeopardy was even more likely if a previous psychological vulnerability was present. If historically robots have been employed in dangerous and risky duties, presently, some of the most promising domains of robots' development also include rehabilitation, caring, and educational and clinic intervention. We are witnessing a shift from the concept of “robot as slaves” to “robots as companions, nurses, teachers…” that, in a word, behave, interact, and work “like us” (cfr. Marchetti et al., 2018). Yang et al. argue that social robots used to “adherence to treatment regimens without spreading of fear” need to be implemented following sophisticated human models, including mental states like emotions and beliefs, as well as the context and environment of the interaction (p. 2). In our opinion, the “environments” are the affordances strictly linked to survival in an evolutionary sense. The “context” is represented by everyday life socio-material and socio-cognitive cues. Furthermore, we believe that the implementation of social robots based on every possible human model cannot merely be the product of “a fusion of engineering and infectious disease professionals” (Yang et al., 2020, p. 2). The model would require an interdisciplinary perspective that includes also the contribution of psychologists. The recent pandemic has in fact laid the foundations for rereading our daily relationships from the point of view of not only human relations but also other agents, such as robots. In the present Opinion, we therefore suggest that the use of robots is not only a purely technical issue but also supported by important changes in the way we view relationships, particularly with those who are close to us. With this aim in mind, we focused on identifying some psychological components most subject to change due to the current global situation. Let's take, for example, the emotion of fear mentioned above. Fear will probably take (if not already has) a different form because of the virus. Fear is a primary (Ekman and Friesen, 1971) and adaptive emotion developed through evolution to enable coping with danger and ensure survival. Predators, contaminants, and invaders are the potentially dangerous enemies that are all risky variables toward which close relationships usually act as protective factors. In case of fear, the options for the individual are represented by the so-called “fight or flight” behaviors. On the relational level, it is the search for a secure base (Bowlby, 1988), where a place can be found for reassurance and affective supply. This tendency persists also in adulthood due to the transgenerational transmission of attachment patterns. Nonetheless, COVID-19 pandemic confronted us with a scenario where “fear has no face.” Now, it also involves close relationship partners, i.e., people who potentially are sources or recipients of care. This profoundly contrasts with a series of fundamental developmental achievements that make physical proximity the embodied prototype of psychological proximity. The individual undertakes a path in which the “known social other”/“unknown social other” dichotomy acts as an organizer of beliefs and attitudes, thus contributing to the construction of the Self as a distinct and separate entity from the Other. From a sensorineural point of view, the human baby is equipped to recognize and trustfully orient herself/himself toward primary figures of care and protection; it is precisely on this basis that trust is built in others and ourselves (Di Dio et al., 2019, 2020a,b; Manzi et al., 2020a,b). The so-called “anguish of the stranger” (Spitz, 1945; Schaffer, 1966) emerges around 8 months of age. It marks the distinction between the caregivers and all the others: before becoming a neutral agent that the child will observe and know, the “other” per se is perceived as scary (worthy of fear in other words). This step appears to be in line with the older child's behavior observed within the Strange Situation (a paradigm aimed at evaluating attachment; Ainsworth et al., 1978): the response of distress and fear toward the stranger, who is generally more accepted if the mother is at the child's presence, and the reactions toward whom are predicted by the security of the child's attachment to the mother. Later in life, the developing child can establish attachment bonds with other people in her/his life contexts: friends, schoolmates, relatives of the extended family, teachers, and educators in various contexts, from school to sports activities (Pianta, 1999). While the theoretical perspective of multiple attachments postulates that the widening of the “known social other” sphere is characterized by a differentiation of the functional roles played by multiple relationships, it maintains the fundamental developmental ability to identify the other as a “secure-safe social partner,” distinguishing him/her from the “risky-unsafe social partner.” The possibility to create multiple attachments prevents a series of developmental risks and acts as an...