The consequences of a year of the COVID-19 pandemic for the mental health of young adult twins in England and Wales

Genetic and environmental contributions to the subjective burden of social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Feelings of loneliness and the burden of social isolation were among the most striking consequences of widespread containment measures, such as "social distancing", during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the potential impact on people's health, there has been increased interest in understanding the mechanisms and factors that contributed to feelings of loneliness and the burdens of social isolation. However, in this context, genetic predisposition has been largely ignored as an important factor. This is problematic because some of the phenotypic associations observed to date may in fact be genetic. The aim of this study is, therefore, to examine the genetic and environmental contributions to the burden of social isolation at two time points during the pandemic. In addition, we examine whether risk factors identified in previous studies explain genetic or environmental contributions to the burden of social isolation.

METHODS

The present study is based on a genetically sensitive design using data from the TwinLife panel study, which surveyed a large sample of adolescent and young adult twins during the first (N = 798) and the second (N = 2520) lockdown in Germany.

RESULTS

We find no substantive differences in genetic and environmental contributions to social isolation burden over the course of the pandemic. However, we find the determinants highlighted as important in previous studies can explain only a small proportion of the observed variance in the burden of social isolation and mainly explained genetic contributions.

CONCLUSIONS

While some of the observed associations appear to be genetic, our findings underscore the need for further research, as the causes of individual differences in burden of social isolation remain unclear.

Are Small Effects the Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science? A Reply to Götz et al. (2022)

In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are "the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science." They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all "small" effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms.

Increased genetic contribution to wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Physical and mental health are determined by an interplay between nature, for example genetics, and nurture, which encompasses experiences and exposures that can be short or long-lasting. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique situation in which whole communities were suddenly and simultaneously exposed to both the virus and the societal changes required to combat the virus. We studied 27,537 population-based biobank participants for whom we have genetic data and extensive longitudinal data collected via 19 questionnaires over 10 months, starting in March 2020. This allowed us to explore the interaction between genetics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' wellbeing over time. We observe that genetics affected many aspects of wellbeing, but also that its impact on several phenotypes changed over time. Over the course of the pandemic, we observed that the genetic predisposition to life satisfaction had an increasing influence on perceived quality of life. We also estimated heritability and the proportion of variance explained by shared environment using variance components methods based on pedigree information and household composition. The results suggest that people's genetic constitution manifested more prominently over time, potentially due to social isolation driven by strict COVID-19 containment measures. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the relative contribution of genetic variation to complex phenotypes is dynamic rather than static.