The Psychological and Neurological Legacy of the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Social Distancing Shaped Long-Term Behavioral Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to see an addition of a couple more Sociological elements to the entry which I generally enjoyed and appreciated.  One aspect came to mind of studies about veterans of jungle warfare from WW II that also applied to Vietnam and greatly contributed to the severity of combats experiences with PTSD.  In jungle warfare hypervigilance was a survival trait and an almost paranoid level of attention was needed, hence when pulled from combat a decompression time was needed to return them to more normal states of interaction based on assumptions of trust and non-threatening interactions.  When this was absent, there was no chance to rewire their emotional and cognitive responses and patterns, resulting in maladaptive responses.  In a real sense in the aftermath of the pandemic most people were not given a chance to reengage pro-socially, but expected to pick up normality on their own with no transition or adaptation support.  This left many floundering.  A key Sociological approach to this can be found in Durkheim's notions of solidarity.  He felt that Mechanical Solidarity was the foundation of every society based on shared experiences, responses, emotions and world views.  This is found in our emotion based primary ties of immediate family and close friends and is the foundation of our core identities and sense of self.  While Organic Solidarity is more based on mutual dependency and rationality, it does not provide this kind of emotional sharing and validation of self and identity.  Face to Face interaction is vital in creating Mechanical Solidarity, and the absence of this leaves one wanting of this validation of self and identity.  Remote work is more typical of Organic Solidarity and while instrumentally functional, is not as emotionally and identity reinforcing functional.  Distancing cut people off from the everyday routines of identity and Mechanical Solidarity maintenance loosening people's ties to society on a deep, personal and emotional level.  That can result in a feeling of distance and disconnection from others that reinforces itself in only surface level interactions.  Reintegration on a purposeful and immersive level would be most effective in getting people to develop the habits of this kind of interaction and help them resolidify their sense of self.  This perspective I think complements what is in the entry by adding another perspective to the same points.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the heads up and pointers on the veterans parallel and for that concept we added a section (section 3) dedicated to the findings highlighted in the review that we hope it will satisfy the reviewer's attention for our debated subject.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The entry on the psychological and neurological legacy of the COVID-12 pandemic meets the requirements of Encyclopedia. The entry is based on reliable sources and established knowledge. It is written in a language accessible to both laymen and professionals. It may be used for teaching purposes. The neurological mechanisms that provide various behavioural patterns, resulting from social distancing, are described in detail and accurately. The authors point out quite rightly that the tendency to social distancing turned out to be a key long-lasting consequence of the pandemic. And this tendency has not only a sociopsychological, but also a neurological basis. The authors provide clear arguments that convincingly prove the need for not only psychosocial, but also neurological interventions to overcome the maladaptive behavioural patterns that have become routine during the COVID-19 pandemic. I agree with the thesis that limiting social interactions now becomes a habit, and this fact requires exactly the kind of understanding presented in the manuscript. The problem is described precisely in the introductory part of the entry. The manuscript is logically structured: a brain focused overview of the neurological conditioning from social distancing, then neural pathway persistence and plasticity as neurological foundation of “new normality” in post-pandemic social reality, neurological and psychological effects of loss of freedom and (self-)control that were experienced due to strict measures imposed by the governments to combat the virus, avoidance as a common coping mechanism to reduce anxiety (the authors aptly and elegantly named this section "The Art of Avoidance" – I really like it). The Art of Avoidance is, in fact, the quintessence of the article, which combines various forms of social distancing and reveals a complex set of mechanisms that support avoidance. This section reflects the interaction of neurological, psychological, and social factors (mass media) of the protective mechanism of avoidance, which should be the focus of psychosocial counselling to solve the problems of a post-covid society. As the positive aspect of the section, I mark the interesting conceptualization of the desire for remote work as neurologically based long-standing leagacy of COVID-12 linked avoidance coping. It explains the behaviour that I observe in people quite well and reasonably through the two facets of adaptive motiation and maladaptive avoidance. I have no any suggestions for improvement.

Author Response

We took in consideration the reviewer's great analysis on our research and we built it a little bit better and also comply with the other reviewer's perspectives. 

Thank you for your support!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors
The proposed article you present seeks to explain the changes in social avoidance behaviors observed in the population after the COVID-19 pandemic, basing the maintenance of these behaviors on changes that occurred in the human neurophysiological system in the pandemic period, but also associating them with different conjunctural and social factors preponderant in the fight against the pandemic.

The objectives of the theoretical study you carried out are not explicit, nor is the question or questions formulated as a starting point for the research carried out.

The format and contents of the article allow it to be identified as a theoretical essay, supported by theories and scientific evidence that are generally duly referenced. Objectively, there is a line of internal coherence throughout the text, based on scientific knowledge related to brain anatomical structures and physiological mechanisms associated with neurological and mental functioning and development, fundamental to homeostasis and the functional balance of the human being. The set of arguments you mobilize are theoretically robust, however, throughout the article there is no reference to limitations that would have opportunity, considering the multiplicity of other individual and contextual variables present in the different post-pandemic life contexts.

I consider that the foundations of your argument are clear to the reader, however, it will be of some interest, if it seems appropriate to you, to consider other possible explanations for the behaviors identified, valuing the importance of the contradictory for a more in-depth analysis and discussion on the subject studied.

The interest and relevance of the article are duly justified by you and, in fact, the deductions drawn and included in the conclusions give utility to the research carried out. You envisage possible lines of deepening in which you highlight the importance of transdisciplinarity, policies that promote mental health and more adaptive behaviors, the prevention of complications associated with social maladaptation, as well as indicate cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies that may be effective in bringing about justified individual and social changes.

I also offer some comments regarding the form and structure of the article.

The title is suggestive and delimits the subject under study. The abstract summarizes the main observations/findings on which the study focuses. It also highlights the main conclusions. I suggest that you consider the possibility of identifying both your main objective and the typology of the study carried out. Key words are central to the text. Perhaps you can reduce them.

The article presents an interesting and logical sequence of chapters, identifying a line of theoretical-scientific coherence throughout its development. The language used is clear and appropriate. From the beginning to the end of the text, there is an adequate articulation of the contents presented, which become progressively complex in order to explain the neurophysiological mechanisms and behaviors evidenced.

The theoretical-scientific sources mobilized are generically well referenced, which gives consistency and robustness to the arguments.
I point out in subchapter 5.1. Line 303 an incomplete word Brain

I believe that a chapter in which the strengths and limitations of the selected methodology would be highlighted would be appropriate. I would like to put your deductions into perspective for your consideration.

The conclusions seem to me to be timely and congruent with the previous development of the article. However, it is not clear if your goal has been achieved. Can you be a little more precise?

Regarding the chapter on references, I did not identify reference 29 (line 605-606) and reference 30 (line 608-609) in all the text presented.
I conclude by stating that the article complies with the necessary ethical criteria.
Thank you for your attention.

Author Response

We received with great pleasure the reviewer's outstanding point of view and made the necessary modifications to the paper. 
First we corrected the technical issues that paper had, and we continued with upgrading it with the ideas the reviewer gave us, as following:

 

1. Explicit Research Objective and Guiding Question

This article examines how public health interventions implemented during the COVID-19 epidemic resulted in enduring alterations in social behavior via neurological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. The objective is to address the question at hand: In what manner did the pandemic influence the human brain and behavior that perceive others as threats, and what are the long-term repercussions of these alterations?

 

2. Insert a Limitations Section 

This article establishes a cause of framework based on neuroscience and psychology, while acknowledging that behavioural results are influenced by individual variability. Variables, such as personality traits, pre-existing trauma, mental health status, cultural norms and access to social support main influencing intensity and visibility of post pandemic behavioural changes. These variations however do not come into question the core argument. In fact, they highlight the way the same underlying neurophysiological mechanisms, such as fear conditioning, stress adaptation, and avoidance reinforcement can manifest along a continuum. This approach does not aim to pathologize every instance of solitude or remote work, but rather shed light on when these behaviours become automatic and emotionally restrictive patterns. In doing so it differentiate between adaptive preference and maladaptive conditioning, providing a more precise perspective and understanding of trauma shaped behaviour in a post-pandemic context. 

 

3. Add a Section on Alternative Explanations and Theoretical Positioning

Cultural, political, and economic factors have shaped pandemic related behaviours, but these variables should be seen as contextual modifiers rather than independent causal agents. This article states that the most lasting behavioural transformations, such as social avoidance, emotional withdrawal, and interpersonal defensiveness are essentially rooted in neuropsychological conditioning processes initiated during the pandemic. Mechanisms such as amygdala sensitisation, fear conditioning, and chronic stress adaptation generated ongoing alterations in how individuals interpret safety, proximity, and social engagement. Social norms, media narratives, and political polarization are among the other contributing factors that reinforce these underlying neural adaptations, which is precisely why they have an impact. As a result, the framework developed here is not one interpretation among many, but a casually primary model providing a structural foundation and base through which more superficial social and cultural variation can be meaningfully understood, recognised and acknowledged.

 

4. Clarify in the Conclusion That the Objective Has Been Achieved

The aim of this article was to identify and clarify the fundamental neuropsychological mechanisms underlying post-pandemic behavioral change. Through a rigorous interdisciplinary analysis grounded in affective neuroscience, trauma theory, and behavioral conditioning, this article has demonstrated that patterns of avoidance, emotional detachment, and social withdrawal are not incidental or simply cultural, they are long-lasting consequences of neural adaptations formed by chronic stress, fear conditioning, and environmental unpredictability during the pandemic. This approach not only achieves its intended objective but also provides a causally grounded model that fundamentally redefines how post-pandemic social behaviour is interpreted. 

 

5. Expand the Implications and Future Directions Section

Implications and Prospective Directions

The conclusions drawn in this essay possess significant implications for mental health policy, social reintegration, and the structuring of post-pandemic environments. If patterns of social avoidance, emotional detachment, and interpersonal defensiveness have their basis in trauma-conditioned neural mechanisms, as argued here, then recovery efforts need to extend beyond surface-level behavioral interventions. Trauma-informed techniques should be integrated into healthcare, education, and organizational systems to disrupt maladaptive neural pathways and promote emotional recalibration. Future research must focus on extinction learning protocols, secure exposure to previously avoided situations, and intentional rebuilding of trust via collective, embodied social practices. Confronting the psychological aftermath of the pandemic requires transdisciplinary collaboration, integrating affective neuroscience, clinical psychology, education, and public policy in order to restore the cognitive and emotional foundations of human social life.

 

All of the inserted elements are highlighted in the updated version of the paper.

 

We thank the reviewer for the support!