Abstract: We investigated how the COVID-19 crisis and the extraordinary experience of lockdown affected young adults in England and Wales psychologically. One month after lockdown commenced (T2), we assessed 30 psychological and behavioural traits in 4,000 twins in their mid-twenties and compared their responses to the same traits assessed in 2018 (T1). Mean changes from T1 to T2 were modest and inconsistent: just as many changes were in a positive as negative direction. Twin analyses revealed that genetics accounted for about half of the reliable variance at T1 and T2. Genetic factors correlated on average .86 between T1 and T2 and accounted for over half of the phenotypic stability. Systematic environmental influences had negligible impact on T1, T2 or T2 change. Rather than the crisis fundamentally changing people psychologically, our results suggest that genetic differences between individuals play a fundamental role in shaping psychological and behavioural responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
Keywords: COVID-19, lockdown, psychological and behavioural traits, twins, young adults, England and Wales
Discussion
How much has the COVID-19 crisis changed young adults psychologically following the unprecedented social experiment of one month of lockdown? As expected, the 30 measures in our study yielded many statistically significant changes in means. The largest changes in the negative direction were reduced volunteering and achievement motivation and increased hyperactivity-inattention. However, there were as many changes in the positive direction, most notably, reduced verbal peer victimisation. Changes were similar in direction and magnitude for males and females, with the single exception of general anxiety, which increased more for females than males. However, most of these mean changes have modest effect sizes, with an average d of 0.24. Although we expected that the crisis would affect some individuals more than others, we found no increase in variance at T2. It is possible that the effects of the crisis will hit harder later or that longer lockdown or the economic aftermath of the crisis will have a greater effect. We will investigate these possibilities with three follow-up surveys during 2020.
Why do these young adults in Great Britain show modest negative effect on average after being in lockdown for one month when it is generally assumed that the psychological effects will be substantial? Part of the answer is that research often focuses on statistical significance and mean differences rather than considering effect size and individual differences. With our large sample size, nearly all variables show significant mean differences, but they don’t make much of a difference, accounting for less than two percent of the variance on average. Another reason might be methodological. In the present study we did not focus on participants’ subjective reports of how the COVID-19 crisis changed them. Instead, at T2, we asked participants to report, for example, how depressed they felt during the month following lockdown, which we compared to their reports of depression on the same measures in 2018. We found no difference in depression on average.
Other reasons why we found few negative effects of the COVID-19 crisis could be that the lockdown was so widespread (we’re all in it together spirit?) or that our participants are British (stiff upper lip?) or that they are young adults (resilience? insouciance?). Concerning the insouciance hypothesis, we asked participants at T2 how much they were worried about their physical health and mental health during the month since lockdown. The frequency of those reporting that they were moderately, very, or extremely worried was 38% for physical health and 57% for mental health. In other words, they were, quite reasonably, worried, although on average they did not change psychologically, including their symptoms of general anxiety. This can be viewed as a hopeful message that young people on average, are resilient psychologically to an experience as seismic as COVID-19 and lockdown, although these mean differences mask individual differences to the COVID-19 and lockdown. It remains to be seen if similar results emerge in other countries, at other ages and after longer exposure to the crisis and its aftermath.
The focus of our study was on individual differences rather than mean differences. How much has COVID-19 shuffled the deck of individual differences? The rank order of individual differences was largely stable from T1 to T2, with stability accounting for about 70% of the reliable variance at T1 and T2 on average across the measures. From a genetic perspective, the most interesting finding was that the average genetic correlation was 0.86, indicating that genetic effects at T1 were highly correlated with genetic effects at T2, despite the intervening COVID-19 crisis and lockdown. It is also interesting that T2 changes, which are independent of T1, show genetic influence.
We conclude that inherited DNA differences are the major systematic force shaping individual differences in psychological traits at T2 as well as at T1. Genetic effects account for about half of the reliable psychological differences between people at T1 and T2. The environment accounts for the rest of the variance, but it is not the systematic effect of environmental factors often assumed to be important, such as shared family environment. Environmental factors of this systematic sort had negligible effects on variance at T1 and T2 and for T2 change. The environmental effects that make a difference are those that are not shared by twin siblings growing up in the same family or, in our study, by twins locked down together. These idiosyncratic ‘non-shared’ environmental factors are likely to be unsystematic, chance experiences (Plomin, 2018).
Our results confirmed seven of our eight pre-registered (https://osf.io/r58be/) hypotheses. This speaks to the replicability of findings from behavioural genetic research on which these hypotheses were based, which is noteworthy given the replication crisis in science in general and in psychology in particular (Plomin et al., 2016). The exception was the hypothesis that variance at T2 would be greater than at T1, which was a prediction not based on behavioural genetic research. The consistency of results from T1 to T2 also attests to the replicability of research in behavioural genetics.
Concluding that inherited DNA differences are the major systematic force shaping who we are psychologically does not imply that novel environmental interventions, including therapeutic interventions, cannot make a difference. It should be emphasised that heritability does not imply immutability.
Heritability is a descriptive statistic limited to a particular population at a particular time with a particular mix of genetic and environmental influences. Our study can be seen as an attempt to assess whether heritability changed as a function of a tectonic shift in environment, the COVID-19 crisis.
Concluding that the COVID-19 crisis has not fundamentally changed these young people psychologically is not to dismiss the pain some of them felt before or during the crisis, or will continue to feel after the crisis ends. Even though the crisis had little effect on means and even less effect on variances and covariances, genetically driven psychological vulnerabilities are especially important targets for preventive interventions in young adults because the twenties is a pluripotent tipping point for life-long psychological problems (Arnett, 2014; Smith et al., 2011).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment