died on the Titanic. Along with three of her closest friends—fashion publicist Eleanor Lambert, former opera singer Kitty Carlisle, and fashion designer Pauline Trigère—Brooke tore through a social schedule that required four changes of clothing a day. Lunch at a downtown café, then a board meeting at the Museum of Modern Art (she was a trustee), an evening concert at Carnegie, followed by a benefit dinner, ending with late drinks, returning home in a comet tail of paparazzi flashbulbs.
Brooke kept a social schedule that could leave a twentysomething personal secretary exhausted. And did—which is in great contrast to the physical ages of the women in this smart, lively quartet. Kitty, the youngest of the bunch, turned ninety that year. Pauline was ninety-one; Eleanor, ninety-six. Brooke was ninety-eight years old.
Did their age, social activity, and intellectual vigor have anything to do with one another? The answer, to the acclaim of elderly partygoers everywhere, is yes. Social interactions are like vitamins and minerals for aging brains, with ridiculously powerful implications. Even socializing over the Internet provides benefits.
The studies are anchored in the safe harbor of peer-reviewed research. The first set of studies established a solid correlation between social interactions and cognition. Researcher Bryan James, an epidemiologist with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, assessed the typical cognitive function and social interactivity of 1,140 seniors without dementia. He scored their social interactivity, then measured their rate of global cognitive decline over a twelve-year period. For the group that socialized the most, the rate of cognitive decline was 70 percent less than for those who socialized the least.
Other researchers focused on specific types of cognition and found virtually the same thing. One famous study looked at rates of memory decline in social isolates versus social butterflies, examining a staggering 16,600 people over six years. Memory decline of the Brooke Astors was half that of the shut-ins. A flurry of other findings confirmed a robust correlation between social interactions and cognitive health.
Even better, the next set of studies looked at causation, not just correlation. They measured people’s baseline cognition, introduced some form of socialization, then remeasured cognition. One intervention showed a cognitive boost in processing speed and working memory with as little as ten minutes of social interaction. Like a public television fund-raiser, data linking socialization with brain power turns out to be remarkably persistent.
The interactions don’t have to be within a long-term relationship, and they don’t necessarily refer to the number of friends one has. Researchers who study this stuff use words like “positive social interactions” (generally associated with the release of dopamine in the brain), “negative social interactions” (generally associated with hormones such as catecholamines and glucocorticoids, released in response to stress), and “social exchanges” (to describe interactivity). I’m going to use the word “relationships” more often to keep things friendly. But if you have social interactions that are positive—whether deep or momentary, with one person or dozens—benefits accrue.
What about the digital world? Does the social interaction have to be in person? Researchers realized long ago that the Internet might provide a perfect way for socially isolated, mobility-challenged seniors to interact with others. The rise of video chats created a terrific experimental test bed. Could people increasingly tethered to home still get a brain lift?
The answer, welcome as a Rothko retrospective, was again yes. One experiment involved people eighty years and older, measuring a baseline for executive function skills and an aspect of language ability that’s related to executive function. Executive function (EF) is a behavioral gearbox mostly housed in the prefrontal cortex, an important region located right behind your forehead. EF includes cognitive control (such as the ability to shift attentional states), emotional regulation (such as the ability to manage your anger), and short-term memory. The researchers got baseline EF scores, then installed a video-chat program for each person and proceeded to hold conversations with the octogenarians, averaging thirty minutes per day for six weeks. Four and a half months later, their brains were retested.
Researchers observed large improvements in both executive function and language skills. The scores leapfrogged over controls who spoke for thirty minutes by phone only. This is consistent with other data suggesting that the better you simulate actual human contact, the richer the social experience becomes. Video chat is not perfect, but for those without the option of regular human contact, it’s a godsend.
These findings are worthy of a J. D. Power award for senior citizen customer satisfaction. Which means you should get out your social calendar, iron your best clothes, and go run a board meeting. Or visit a museum. The answer to the question “Does socialization really decrease the rate of cognitive decline?” is a robust and hearty “Yes.”
How exactly does the buoyant power of socialization work? Two main ways: it reduces stress, which helps maintain not only the body’s general health but specific aspects of the immune system, and it’s a workout for the brain.
More parties, less flu
The more positive social interactions you have, the lighter your allostatic load becomes, as neuroendocrinologist Bruce McEwen would put it. He’s the researcher who came up with the concept of “allostatic load.” Allostatic load is the aggregate effect of stress on your body’s capability, including brain capability, through time. The more stress you encounter, the bigger the load (and the greater the damage). Consider stress metaphorically: the stresses in life are oceanic waves, and your body is a cliff. The more waves that crash onto the cliff, the greater the erosion, and the more severe the total effect. Allostatic load is the measure of your body’s deterioration, in response to the lifelong waves of stress you experience.
Less stress is important particularly for the immune system. The immune system naturally becomes compromised as you age, but the more stressed you are, the greater risk you run of weakening parts of the immune system. We even know why. One critical arm of the immune system involves a group of cellular warriors known as T-cells. These cells play critical roles in wound healing (like when you get a cut) and recovering from infectious diseases (like when you get colds and flus). Stress hormones like cortisol—at the high levels you experience when you’re in a bad marriage or otherwise chronically stressed—actually kill T-cells. Your wounds heal at a rate 40 percent slower if you’re in a high-hostility marriage than in a low-hostility one. And you get more colds. Says elderly-care expert Gary Skole: “Those elderly folks who get out and interact and spend more time with people during cold/flu season actually get fewer colds and illnesses than those who spend most of their time alone.”
These data serve to underscore the growing link in the scientific literature between positive interactions, stress reduction, and longer life. No doubt Karl and Elizabeth are right now busy nodding their heads. And Karl’s dad is probably rolling around in his grave.
A workout for your brain
One of the reasons why social interactions are so good for you is that they take so much energy to maintain, consistently giving your brain a bona fide workout. Case in point is a clip from the movie When Harry Met Sally. The scene is where Sally (Meg Ryan) asks Harry (Billy Crystal) to come over for some major-league consolation: Sally’s ex has decided to marry someone else. Through tears and sobs and gobs of tissues, Sally tells Harry, “All this time, I’ve been saying that he didn’t want to get married. But the truth is, he didn’t want to marry me.” Harry, bless him, attempts his best lifeboat impression, although by now Sally is nearly drowning in a cocktail of saltwater and snot. “I’m difficult!” she blubbers. Harry counters thoughtfully: “Challenging.” Sally sobs, “I’m too structured, I’m completely closed off!” Harry shrugs: “But in a good way.”
With unexpurgated grief in Sally’s case and measured
