By Alfonso Abizaid

Stress is inevitable and a critical factor associated with chronic disorders that include cardiovascular disease, cancer, metabolic disorders, and psychiatric disorders(1). Of the latter, stressors play an important role on the etiology, progression and treatment prognosis(2, 3). Because of this, it is critical to determine the factors that make individuals more resilient against the effects of stressors. One such factor is physical activity, a clearly impactful and cost-effective behavioral change alternative that increases stress resilience, improves mental health treatments, and ultimately reduces the burden on the health care system(4). Yet, despite these obvious benefits, little is known about the biological mechanisms underlying the impact of physical activity on stress resilience, and how psychosocial factors can influence these processes. Finally, and despite reports indicating that Canadian children and emerging adults are not meeting recommended physical activity health guidelines(5), little is known on the consequences of sedentary behaviors on brain function in the short term and in the long term. This might be of special interest to those communities that face barriers to physical activity including children and emerging adults of equity-owed communities including low income, racialized, gender diverse, indigenous or people with special accessibility needs, all communities that are at a higher risk of stress-related mental health challenges.

In this series of blogs we seek to present the latest evidence on the beneficial effects of physical activity on stress induced changes in brain function and mental health disorders with emphasis on building resilience. As part of these blogs we describe the potential long-term consequences of not meeting healthy physical activity recommendations in terms of brain function and vulnerability to stress, and the potential recommendations that could improve engagement in physical activity especially in at risk populations. Knowledge users (scientists, community-based organizations, policymakers, leaders and members of marginalized communities) are invited to participate and communicate some of the gaps that restrict access to physical activity and how programs that are effective in increasing physical activity may alter brain structure while improving mental health indicators. With this interaction we hope to identify research needs related to physical activity as an effective coping mechanism to attenuate the effects of stressors, and to determine interdisciplinary research teams to systematically explore how to improve mental health by improving accessibility to populations that lag behind.  

It is well established that  sufficient physical activity has multiple benefits that promote the health and quality of life. Preclinical studies using animal models show that laboratory animals allowed to run on wheels, or placed in regimens where they must increase their activity show improved metabolic function, improved cognitive function, increased brain plasticity and resilience to stress(6). Human preclinical, clinical, and population-based studies demonstrate that increased physical activity can be an effective intervention to improve metabolic and cardiovascular health, prevent aging-related accidents and improve quality of life in the elderly, promote healthy development in children and emerging adults, and is associated with improved cognitive function, mental health markers, and responses to numerous medical interventions and treatments(7). Importantly, increased physical activity and exercise are thought to be a particularly good interventions to cope with stressors (8).

The effectiveness of physical activity, however, is variable and the factors that can increase or decrease its effectiveness as an intervention to mitigate stress-related health challenges remain to be fully elucidated. At the physiological level, increased physical activity results in metabolic, endocrine, and microbiota changes that can enhance resilience(9). For instance, exercise can diminish circulating inflammatory factors and can influence the release of metabolic hormones that allow organisms to meet the energetic demands of stress more efficiently and with less wear and tear(4, 10). In the brain, increased physical activity promotes the release of neurotropic factors that can increase synaptic plasticity and neurogenesis, and that can also attenuate the negative effects of stress on these parameters (4, 10).

Nevertheless, preclinical models of physical activity have focused on paradigms where laboratory animals are placed in enclosures with activity wheels, which are novel and reinforcing given the generally impoverished environments in which these animals live, suggesting that the beneficial effects are due to a more enriched and stimulating environment rather than the increase in physical activity itself(11). In humans, there is evidence linking chronic stress and impoverished environments with alterations in brain structure, and correlated with deficits in cognitive functions and higher indexes in mental health disorders(3). Similar alteraions have been observed in individuals that follow a sedentary lifestyle(12-14). Importantly, physical activity can also change brain structure in association with improvements in cognitive function(15). Nevertheless, and despite the evidence for direct and indirect benefits of physical activity, equity-owed communities encounter social and economic barriers that make them more reluctant to engage in physical activity opportunities. In fact, a recent report by participACTION, highlights disappointing scores of physical activity in the Canadian population with especially low levels of physical activity in children and emerging adults of equity-owed communities(5, 16). While the long-term effects of these low levels of activity cannot yet be established they do suggest that these young individuals may be less resilient to stressors and at a greater risk of developing mental health disorders. By understanding how physical activity increases resilience against stressors, especially at the level of brain structure and function, we may be able to determine biomarkers to predict resilience, especially after physical activity interventions. Furthermore, forward steps can be made in research to better determine the consequences of sedentary behaviors in equity-owed communities and promote physical activity engagement in to improve resilience and ultimately curb their incidence of mental health disorders in these groups(17).

In the blogs from this special compilation we describe the work of a multidisciplinary group of scientists invited to present at Carleton University’s Neuroscience Colloquium series whose work is focus on this very important issue. We hope that as a knowledge user you find this compilation informative at the personal and professional level and invite you to leave your comments.

Check out this series:

• Community Health and Wellbeing: The Impact of Trauma and Violence Informed Physical Activity (TVIPA)
• Métis Identity and Culture in Health and Wellbeing: An Interview with Dr. Heather Foulds and the Influence of the Red River Jig.
• Navigating the youth mental health crisis: The impact of physical activity and screen time on well-being​​
• Healthy Aging: Benefits of Physical Activity in Populations with Vascular Cognitive Impairments

References

1. B. S. McEwen et al., Mechanisms of stress in the brain. Nat Neurosci 18, 1353-1363 (2015).
2. H. Anisman, K. Matheson, Stress, depression, and anhedonia: caveats concerning animal models. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29, 525-546 (2005).
3. S. J. Lupien, R. P. Juster, C. Raymond, M. F. Marin, The effects of chronic stress on the human brain: From neurotoxicity, to vulnerability, to opportunity. Front Neuroendocrinol 49, 91-105 (2018).
4. B. S. McEwen, The untapped power of allostasis promoted by healthy lifestyles. World Psychiatry 19, 57-58 (2020).
5. N. Kuzik et al., "Lost& Found: Pandemic-Related Challenges and Opportunities for Physical Activity,"  (2022).
6. M. W. Voss, C. Vivar, A. F. Kramer, H. van Praag, Bridging animal and human models of exercise-induced brain plasticity. Trends Cogn Sci 17, 525-544 (2013).
7. P. Posadzki et al., Exercise/physical activity and health outcomes: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. BMC Public Health 20, 1724 (2020).
8. M. Pearce et al., Association Between Physical Activity and Risk of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 79, 550-559 (2022).
9. L. S. Chow et al., Exerkines in health, resilience and disease. Nat Rev Endocrinol 18, 273-289 (2022).
10. B. S. McEwen, In pursuit of resilience: stress, epigenetics, and brain plasticity. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1373, 56-64 (2016).
11. R. Rabadan, M. Ramos-Campos, R. Redolat, P. Mesa-Gresa, Physical activity and environmental enrichment: Behavioural effects of exposure to different housing conditions in mice. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) 79, 374-385 (2019).
12. C. M. Maasakkers et al., Sedentary behaviour and brain health in middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 140, 104802 (2022).
13. E. C. Perez, D. R. Bravo, S. P. Rodgers, A. R. Khan, J. L. Leasure, Shaping the adult brain with exercise during development: Emerging evidence and knowledge gaps. Int J Dev Neurosci 78, 147-155 (2019).
14. L. W. M. Vergoossen et al., Association of physical activity and sedentary time with structural brain networks-The Maastricht Study. Geroscience 43, 239-252 (2021).
15. W. Zhang, C. Zhou, A. Chen, A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of physical exercise on white matter integrity and cognitive function in older adults. Geroscience,  (2023).
16. J.-P. Cahput et al., "ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Adults,"  (2021).
17. M. Stevens et al., A Social Identity Approach to Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity. Sports Med 47, 1911-1918 (2017).

By Hymie Anisman

This is a reprise and extension of a blog post previously written for the CHAIM centre with a somewhat greater focus on bullying within a university context (https://carleton.ca/chaimcentre/tag/bully/).

Most of us spend about half of our waking hours at the workplace. For some people work is a positive experience and even acts as a buffer or coping method to deal with life stressors, whereas for others work is a drudge that must be endured. When the workplace becomes a stressor, especially when individuals experience high job demands, but with limited decision latitude (job strain), the occurrence of illnesses, such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, increases appreciably. These outcomes are exacerbated further when job strain is accompanied by the perception of unfairness or injustice.

A powerful stressor that can be encountered in the workplace is bullying. Although bullying is most frequently discussed in relation to adolescents and school environments, particularly as it has become especially pernicious through attacks coming through social media, it isn’t restricted to adolescent experiences, being much too common in the workplace.
​
Workplace bullying can take any of multiple forms, and there is little doubt that intentional, prolonged harassment (or violence) coming from a coworker or from a group (mobbing) can lead to a variety of negative neurobiological changes, as well as a range of psychological and physical illnesses. Bullying can be manifested in the form of ostracism, belittling, sarcastic remarks, rudeness, name-calling, sexual harassment, scapegoating, threats, violence, overworking an employee, or by ignoring or marginalizing them. Even one of these stressful experiences, such as being ostracized by others, gives rise to brain changes that in several respects are reminiscent of those elicited by pain.

​​Not unexpectedly, being the victim of frequent bullying may be accompanied by disturbances of the stress hormone, cortisol, and its diurnal profile is reminiscent of that seen among individuals with PTSD or those going through other chronic stressor experiences. Predictably, bullying can tax coping resources and can have cumulative effects, and the distress created can metastasize so that victims may develop symptoms of depression and anxiety, sleep problems, and in some instances posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with symptoms persisting for years.

It is sometimes assumed that bullying is uncommon in the workplace, after all ‘we’re all adults here’ and lectures by some human resource groups portray bullying as occurring infrequently. In fact, within Canada 55% of those surveyed reported being the target of workplace bullying and half of bullied individuals experience mental health disturbances. Predictably, those who are bullied take more sick leave, and even witnesses to bullying report that their work performance suffers.
​
What makes the problem worse is that of these individuals only 60% informed their employers (the remainder indicated that it was pointless to do so), and of that number, two-thirds reported the issue was not resolved. Indeed, only about one-third of employers took actions to limit bullying, and even when actions were taken, most had been ineffective.

It’s especially unfortunate when the bullying emanates from a boss (manager). There’s hardly anyone who hasn’t heard about the boss who is egotistical, demanding, criticizes others for no reason other than self-aggrandizement, who makes a habit or game of humiliating them publicly, and who is described as “not brooking fools lightly” (as if this were a positive attribute). In this group are ‘victim bullies’ who have little in the way of social skills and have themselves previously experienced being bullied or marginalized. This type of bully is relatively easy to spot as they typically exhibit high levels of anger and hostility, and have deficient social skills, problems with emotional regulation, and internalizing disorders, such as depression. In their frustration they take their problems out on staff, perceiving others to be working against them, and because of their own insecurities they react to imaginary threats. Then there are the ‘proactive bullies’, who tend to display abusive behaviors that are goal-oriented, enabling them to take credit for the work of others, and whose behavior ultimately benefits them with greater power, privileges, or rewards. This bully can’t bear not being the hero and so is not pleased when others succeed. If anyone challenges this type of bully-boss, they can count on a short tenure in the organization. When the features of the different types of bullies come together in a single individual, then the outcomes are still more ferocious.
​
There are any number of factors that determine why bully bosses behave the way they do. Bullying might be a means to maintain power and control over others. Alternatively, as described more than six decades ago, experiences of frustration might breed anger and aggression which is misdirected at those not in a position to fight back. The frustration and ensuing ruthless behavior might develop because of excessive job demands (workload and role conflict) and job-related resources that were unavailable (ultimate decision authority, salary/promotion prospects), coupled with a self-perceived incompetence that can be covered over by aggressive behaviors.

Although it isn’t my intent to describe the multiple factors that could potentially create the bully, I can hardly resist making a couple of comments. There was a move toward explaining this pathology based on dysfunctions within particular brain regions, and there have even been suggestions that these individuals shouldn’t be blamed for their sickness! Regardless, it’s hard to feel sorry for a psychopathic boss who derives satisfaction from humiliating employees. Robert Hare, a major researcher in psychopathy had indicated that 1% of individuals could be categorized as being a psychopath, being present across the spectrum of white-collar professions. Psychopaths know and understand what they’re doing, but experience an “emotional deafness”, being unable to have any empathy for others. They focus on their own interests and perceive others simply as pawns or suckers that can be preyed upon, and when they encounter pushback, even if it’s imaginary, they claim that they’re the victim.

As psychopaths typically have above average intelligence, their ruthlessness and fixation on personal power increase the odds that they will advance in organizations (corporate, political, university). In their 2007 book ‘Snakes in Suits; When Psychopaths go to Work’, Babiak and Hare provided an extensive description of the corporate psychopath, the different strategies they endorse to get what they want (manipulation, bullying, anger, emotional outbursts, among other manipulative behaviors) and the extent to which they will go to reach the goals and needs on their agenda. It has been estimated by Boddy and his associates (2010) that although they might make up only 1% of the workforce, psychopaths account for more than 26% of workplace bullying. Given these numbers, one might wonder why bullies aren’t gotten rid of by their bosses? Boddy surmised that the corporate culture has enabled the destructive bullying behaviors by these individuals, as their corporations look to profits generated by psychopaths, and thus take little action to discourage malevolent behaviors. In essence, the psychopathic bully might be convenient to have around. Alternatively, because psychopathic bullies punch down and suck up, their bosses might not recognize them as being what they actually are.
​
Bullying is obviously a serious problem for any organization, and it requires good leaders to manage such issues. This is especially important given the effects of bullying on workplace productivity, creativity, and loyalty, sick leaves being taken, absenteeism as well as disengagement from the organization. In this regard, ill effects are not only experienced by the victim of bullying, but also by witnesses to the bullying. This could stem from empathetic reactions, or perhaps from the guilt or despair created by not being able to intervene, or the fear of the same thing happening to them. It may be particularly relevant that witnesses to others being bullied increases their intention to leave the organization.

Workplace bullying occurs across various organizations, including within government, large corporations and small companies, and is present within universities. Numerous reports have pointed to students being bullied by professors, and it even occurs among professors, and administrators may likewise bully professors. Indeed, 25% of faculty have reported that they were bullied over a 12-month period, and 40% indicated that they were aware of such occurrences.

As in corporate and government institutions, the fault of bullying within universities may stem from ineffective management. When a leader does nothing in the face of others being persecuted, they’re essentially taking the side of the oppressor. Often, despite the bullying by low level managers, more senior administrators might simply ignore obvious problems, even when complaints have been made. Perhaps they’ll mouth patronizing and wrongheaded statements about there being two sides to every story. However, some senior managers rarely speak with the rank and file and so in actuality only hear the side that rises from their direct line of reporting. In some instances, the senior manager hopes the problem will dissipate on its own over time, or they may engage in a series of exercises that don’t fix the problem, but instead inflame an already bad situation. Unfortunately, fires don’t go out until all the fuel has been consumed.

In times of crisis, such as financial constraints being necessary (downsizing, budget cuts), bullying behaviors may intensify, particularly if the bullying comes with financial savings.  Under these conditions, senior administrators are apt to look the other way, and bullies may think that they can do what they please with impunity. Because of these behaviors, institutional norms may change, which potentially could form the basis of a bully culture.

However, administrators are wrong if they think that they can spit in the face of their faculty, expecting them to pretend that its rain. Some faculty may leave the job, absenteeism may increase, performance may diminish, and commitment to the university and trust in it will falter. Challenging organizational times require the cooperation of all involved, and bullies have the effect of undermining engagement, creative problem-solving, or any calls to go beyond required duties or what’s in a job description. Moreover, these negative feelings and attitudes will persist long after the challenge has dissipated. Ultimately, dissatisfied professors will make for dissatisfied students, and the valued bums-on-seats will vanish.
​
If nothing else, senior administrators need to be cognizant that the success of a university is built on trust that their behaviors are not only consistent with the needs of the university but for every one of the staff and faculty. For this, it is necessary that bullies not be incentivized, and that an environment be established that is supportive for faculty, staff, and students. Having all members of the university community work as a unit with a shared identity, having trusting interactions, and appreciative of the collective needs of one another, are needed for an institution to thrive, not just barely survive.

By Kim Matheson
​
In 2004, our team was awarded a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research to assess the mental health implications of different forms of stigma and discrimination. One population we included in this research was Jews. At that time, we quoted that while “anti-Semitism is not gone,” it was “increasingly irrelevant to the daily lives and opportunities of Canadian Jews” (Weinfeld, 2001).
​
One of the reasons we included Jews was due to the rampant historical antisemitism that had been evident for millennia, albeit in cycles of golden and dark eras. However, in 2004, we were sensing an emerging cloud of darkness. Indeed, the status of Jews was becoming more threatened than it had been in decades. Particularly following Al-Queda’s September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Centre, there was a surprising backlash against Israel seen through repeated negative votes against Israel within the United Nations, frequent reports of blatant antisemitism in Europe, and Western media coverage was perceived to portray Middle East affairs without sympathy to Israel. Many Jews believed that antisemitism had escalated, but that it was often couched in terms of anti-Zionism (not incidentally, many Jews do not view Zionism as a challenge to their group identity).
 
And escalate it has. From rabid BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaigns against Israel that started in 2005 (and funded by organizations in Iran and Saudi Arabia), to antisemitic campus groups fostering a rhetoric of hate, to trade unions and political parties capitalizing on what seems to be a zeitgeist of anti-Zionism applied through the exclusion and denigration of any Jew who dares embrace their Jewish identity with pride or in solidarity with Israel. While those fostering such Jew-hatred wave their hands with the defence “It isn’t about Jews, it’s about Zionism. It’s about Israel’s colonization and genocide of the Palestinians”, it is clear that their source of information derives from an addiction to social media platforms and the algorithms that expose users to narratives they already espouse, rather than a critical and informed understanding of history and global politics.

While there are many examples of such ignorance, here are just a few:

(1) MYTH Jews colonized Palestine.  Jews have been present in the region that now constitutes Israel since before Christ. Over the centuries, there have been an untold number of battles among Jews, Christians, and Muslims to occupy this region, and the existence of the state of Israel is an assertion that this region has long been a Jewish ancestorial homeland. In Jerusalem alone, one sees the evidence of a thriving pre-biblical Jewish presence, including the Temple Mount (957 BCE), the Western Wall (2nd century BCE), and Yad Avshalom (1st century CE).​

(2) MYTH Zionists are an extremist Jewish group. Or as I recently saw on social media “Zionists are to Judaism what the KKK are to Christianity”. Zionism is not about the subjugation of any group. Fundamentally, given the long history of persecution, it is about the creation of a protected space that allows Jews to live in peace and safety.  The creation of a Jewish state became a Zionist imperative in light of the Holocaust of World War II wherein over 6 million Jews were murdered (to say nothing of the multigenerational trauma of survivors). Just as egregious was the global lack of sympathy for Jews fleeing Europe as countries, including Canada and the US, closed their borders sending ships full of stranded Jewish families away. In 1948 Israel was legally recognized as an independent sovereign state. Zionism derives its strength from the rampant antisemitism of the West and of the surrounding countries that continue to be overtly hostile to Jews.

​(3) MYTH Israel instigated the war against Gaza as an excuse to eliminate the Palestinians. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. By 2007 Hamas held complete political control of Gaza. Hamas is well-funded by Iran and dedicated not to creating a flourishing Palestinian economy, but rather to the incitement of Jew-hatred and the destruction of the state of Israel. Following years of sending rocket missiles into Israel, on October 7, 2023 Hamas launched an attack on southern Israel, killing over 1200 civilians and abducting 251 Jewish Israelis and foreign nationals, including women, children and elderly people. To date, 154 have been released, rescued or their bodies recovered; 97 remain in captivity. Israel’s goal is to protect itself from further deadly attacks, and to recover the remaining hostages. Hamas has integrated its military installations within schools, hospitals, and heavily populated areas in Gaza using citizens as a human shield, and provoking international outcry when Israel has the audacity to fight back.

​These three examples aren’t intended to be comprehensive. There are those who will apply an appallingly revisionist interpretation of events no matter what facts are presented. Others who are sincerely interested in questioning the biases of social and mainstream media might be motivated to dig further to understand the sociopolitical dynamics at play – they might not agree, but their analyses may be thoughtful, recognizing the complexity of the situation that is not captured by simple-minded memes or headlines.
 
So why is this relevant here? Aside from a strong commitment to social justice issues, our research and that of others has consistently demonstrated that discriminatory experiences can culminate in stress-related pathology. Indeed, as in other stigmatized groups, Western Jews are at elevated risk for stress-related disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD, along with stress-linked physical problems, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
 
At the same time, strong identification with such groups can provide a basis for collective esteem, social support and solidarity. Indeed, individuals who report high identification with a stigmatized group appear to experience the least depression or loss of self-esteem when their identity is threatened. Group members may turn to one another to reduce distress and uncertainty by acquiring validation from one another and minimizing the feelings of rejection emanating from the actions of outgroups. The ability to rely on support from within the group may also serve a strategic function, facilitating a collective understanding of events and potential responses. In short, the most effective coping strategy when groups are under threat is for members to come together. This is precisely what we’re seeing among Jews globally, a reaction that is intensified and polarized by the global uproar against Israel and unrestrained antisemitism that requires ‘good Jews’ to denounce themselves. However, Jewish communities have a very long history of resilience in the face of the most horrific persecution. This most recent dark era will be no exception.
 
I have spent my career trying to understand the factors that enable disadvantaged groups to mobilize and sustain strong positive identities. I have been conducting research with women’s groups, black immigrants, religious minorities, LGBTQ2S, and Indigenous Peoples.  Working toward building a just and equitable society has grounded and motivated me in these efforts. I am not Jewish, but I am deeply disturbed by the uninformed self-righteousness of academics, politicians, and others who ought to know better but are actively promulgating this current wave of anti-Jewish hatred. Why have we not learned from history?

Face masks have been a predominant symbol of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, mask mandates and mandates in general have been—and continue to be—quite divisive. With conflicting political and scientific messaging about the virus, many individuals are left unsure about the science behind masking and if they should continue to be worn to protect their health and the health of others. Previous studies have speculated that culture plays a fundamental role in shaping people’s response and subsequent health behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Biddlestone et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021). It has become increasingly apparent that behavioural science is essential for understanding and addressing the decisions on whether to refuse or adhere to health guidelines, as well as the influential role that cultural perspectives and political messaging have on these behaviours.

One identified reason for the lack of compelling evidence on the efficacy of public mask wearing is the lack of controlled trials due to logistical and ethical reasons during the pandemic (Ju et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is thought that the primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles; however, even this notion has been criticized. A systematic review sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that mask-wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles (Chu et al., 2020). However, the amount of protection you receive from a mask depends on the quality of the mask and how well it fits. Thankfully, guidance from reputable sources like the Public Health Agency of Canada and the WHO have resources on proper COVID-19 mask use. Despite these available resources, many individuals still choose to not wear a mask in public spaces.

​We now understand that face masks are most effective when 100% of the individuals in a public space are wearing one (Chu et al., 2020). Therefore, in order for protective face masks (in conjunction with other preventive health measures) to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19, they  must be viewed as the standard acceptable behaviour by the general public in order to adopt and maintain this social norm (Bokemper et al., 2021). Research has shown that culture fundamentally shapes how people respond to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic (see Lu et al., 2021). It has also been found that collectivist cultures demonstrate greater adherence to social norms (see Tripathi & Leviatan, 2003). Collectivism encapsulates the tendency to be more concerned with the group’s needs, goals, and interests than with individualistic-oriented interests (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). It has been speculated that a sense of collectivism may improve individuals’ attitudes toward behaviours that involve personal discomfort, such as masking. Places with cultures that are considered to be more collectivist (e.g., Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea) contained the spread of COVID-19 more effectively than places with more individualist cultures (e.g., United States, Spain, and Italy; Biddlestone et al., 2020). Unfortunately, people in individualist cultures often prioritize their personal convenience or preference while ignoring the collective consequences of doing so. For example, although properly fitted masks effectively protect against COVID-19, they can be uncomfortable and create inconvenience. Thus, more community-minded thinking that aligns with collectivist cultural norms would need to be adopted in order to encourage mask-wearing in public settings.

Leadership is critical in adopting collectivist cultural norms (Lu et al., 2021). Unfortunately, the politicization of masks has led some individuals to not fully adopt masking due to political polarization. In fact, some report that choosing to wear a mask may be seen as making a political statement. Policy recommendations and the public acceptability of mask-wearing falls largely on the shoulders of government. As COVID-19 continues to spread, governments around the world debated on whether to recommend or mandate the use of masks in public. After the lifting of mandates in several countries, including Canada, responsibility to wear a mask shifted from a collective effort to an individual responsibility. However, Canada’s top doctors still recommend wearing a mask—even without mandates. The conflicting messaging between politicians and public health officials has become more confusing, leaving the decision to wear a mask in public up to individual comfort level. Unfortunately, people need guidance in times of uncertainty and that guidance cannot be nuanced (Capurro et al., 2021). Nuance will only create further confusion and increase potential opportunities for misinformation.

As Canadians grow increasingly frustrated with the changing messaging and restrictions one message has become clear. We must now “learn to live with the virus.” But what exactly does living with COVID-19 entail? In order to move forward in a safe manner, there must be better efforts to bridge the gap between politics and science. Public health messaging must consider the motivational roots of health behaviours. In order to encourage individuals to continue to wear face masks without a mandated requirement to do so, strategies to increase collectivist behaviours must be considered. Understanding cultural differences and the power of social norms will provide insight into the current pandemic and help us prepare for future crises.