The stability and change of wellbeing across the lifespan: a longitudinal twin-sibling study.

BACKGROUND: Wellbeing is relatively stable over the life span. However, individuals differ in this stability and change. One explanation for these differences could be the influence of different genetic or environmental factors on wellbeing over time. METHODS: To investigate causes of stability and change of wellbeing across the lifespan, we used cohort-sequential data on wellbeing from twins and their siblings of the Netherlands Twin Register (NTR) (total N = 46.885, 56% females). We organized wellbeing data in multiple age groups, from childhood (age 5), to adolescence, up to old age (age 61+). Applying a longitudinal genetic simplex model, we investigated the phenotypic stability of wellbeing and continuity and change in genetic and environmental influences. RESULTS: Wellbeing peaked in childhood, decreased during adolescence, and stabilized during adulthood. In childhood and adolescence, around 40% of the individual differences was explained by genetic effects. The heritability decreased toward old adulthood (35-24%) and the contribution of unique environmental effects increased to 76%. Environmental innovation was found at every age, whereas genetic innovation was only observed during adolescence (10-18 years). In childhood and adulthood, the absence of genetic innovation indicates a stable underlying set of genes influencing wellbeing during these life phases. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insights into the stability and change of wellbeing and the genetic and environmental influences across the lifespan. Genetic effects were mostly stable, except in adolescence, whereas the environmental innovation at every age suggests that changing environmental factors are a source of changes in individual differences in wellbeing over time.

Distinguishing happiness and meaning in life from depressive symptoms: A GWAS-by-subtraction study in the UK Biobank.

Hedonic (happiness) and eudaimonic (meaning in life) well-being are negatively related to depressive symptoms. Genetic variants play a role in this association, reflected in substantial genetic correlations. We investigated the overlap and differences between well-being and depressive symptoms, using results of Genome-Wide Association studies (GWAS) in UK Biobank. Subtracting GWAS summary statistics of depressive symptoms from those of happiness and meaning in life, we obtained GWASs of respectively "pure" happiness (neffective = 216,497) and "pure" meaning (neffective = 102,300). For both, we identified one genome-wide significant SNP (rs1078141 and rs79520962, respectively). After subtraction, SNP heritability reduced from 6.3% to 3.3% for pure happiness and from 6.2% to 4.2% for pure meaning. The genetic correlation between the well-being measures reduced from 0.78 to 0.65. Pure happiness and pure meaning became genetically unrelated to traits strongly associated with depressive symptoms, including loneliness, and psychiatric disorders. For other traits, including ADHD, educational attainment, and smoking, the genetic correlations of well-being versus pure well-being changed substantially. GWAS-by-subtraction allowed us to investigate the genetic variance of well-being unrelated to depressive symptoms. Genetic correlations with different traits led to new insights about this unique part of well-being. Our results can be used as a starting point to test causal relationships with other variables, and design future well-being interventions.

A systematic review of the neural correlates of well-being reveals no consistent associations.

Findings from behavioral and genetic studies indicate a potential role for the involvement of brain structures and brain functioning in well-being. We performed a systematic review on the association between brain structures or brain functioning and well-being, including 56 studies. The 11 electroencephalography (EEG) studies suggest a larger alpha asymmetry (more left than right brain activation) to be related to higher well-being. The 18 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) studies, 26 resting-state functional MRI studies and two functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) studies identified a wide range of brain regions involved in well-being, but replication across studies was scarce, both in direction and strength of the associations. The inconsistency could result from small sample sizes of most studies and a possible wide-spread network of brain regions with small effects involved in well-being. Future directions include well-powered brain-wide association studies and innovative methods to more reliably measure brain activity in daily life.

Daily affect intensity and variability of adolescents and their parents before and during a COVID-19 lockdown.

INTRODUCTION: The corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic may have a prolonged impact on people's lives, with multiple waves of infections and lockdowns, but how a lockdown may alter emotional functioning is still hardly understood. METHODS: In this 100-daily diaries study, we examined how to affect intensity and variability of adolescents (N = 159, Mage = 13.3, 61.6% female) and parents (N = 159, Mage = 45.3, 79.9% female) changed after the onset and during (>50 days) the second COVID-19 lockdown in the Netherlands, using preregistered piecewise growth models. RESULTS: We found only an unexpected increase in parents' positive affect intensity after the lockdown onset, but no immediate changes in negative affect intensity or variability. However, both adolescents and parents reported gradual increases in negative affect intensity and variability as the lockdown prolonged. Lockdown effects did not differ between adolescents and parents. However, within groups, individuals differed. The individual differences in the effects were partly explained by life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and self-reported lockdown impact. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings suggests that a lockdown triggers changes in daily affective well-being especially as the lockdown prolongs. Individual differences in the effects indicate heterogeneity in the impact of the lockdown on daily affect that was partly explained by baseline life satisfaction and depressive symptoms. However, more knowledge on the causes of this heterogeneity is needed to be able to increase resilience to lockdown effects in the population.

A Re-evaluation of Candidate Gene Studies for Well-Being in Light of Genome-Wide Evidence.

Ever since twin-family studies found that a substantial amount (± 40%) of the variation in well-being can be explained by genetic variation, several candidate genes have been proposed explaining this variation. However, these candidate gene and candidate gene-by-environment interaction studies have been surrounded by controversy regarding the validity and replication of their results. In the present study, we review the existing candidate gene literature for well-being. First, we perform a systematic literature search that results in the inclusion of 41 studies. After describing the results of the included studies, we evaluated the included candidate polymorphisms by (1) looking up the results for the studied candidate SNPs in a large well-being genome-wide association study, (2) performing association analyses in UK biobank (UKB) data for the candidate variable number tandem repeats (VNTR) and the APOE ε4 allele, and (3) studying possible candidate interactions with positive and negative environmental moderators using UKB data. We find no support for any of the candidate genes or candidate gene-environment interactions for well-being, with the exception of two SNPs that were chosen based on genome-wide evidence. While the generalizability of our findings is limited by our phenotype and environment definitions, we strongly advise well-being researchers to abandon the candidate gene approach in the field of well-being and move toward genome-wide approaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10902-022-00538-x.

The human physiology of well-being: A systematic review on the association between neurotransmitters, hormones, inflammatory markers, the microbiome and well-being.

To understand the pathways through which well-being contributes to health, we performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines on the association between well-being and physiological markers in four categories, neurotransmitters, hormones, inflammatory markers, and microbiome. We identified 91 studies. Neurotransmitter studies (knumber of studies=9) reported only a possible positive association between serotonin and well-being. For the hormone studies (k = 48), a lower momentary cortisol level was related to higher well-being (meta-analytic r = -0.06), and a steeper diurnal slope of cortisol levels. Inflammatory marker studies (k = 36) reported negative or non-significant relations with well-being, with meta-analytic estimates of respectively r = -0.07 and r = -0.05 for C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Microbiome studies (k = 4) reported inconsistent associations between different bacteria abundance and well-being. The results indicate possible but small roles of serotonin, cortisol, and inflammatory markers in explaining differences in well-being. The inconsistent and limited results for other markers and microbiome require further research. Future directions for a complete picture of the physiological factors underlying well-being are proposed.

Self-rated health when population health is challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic; a longitudinal study.

RATIONALE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and consequent lockdown measures have had a large impact on people's lives. Recent evidence suggests that self-rated health (SRH) scores remained relatively stable or increased during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: For the current project, we examine potential changes in the variance decomposition of SRH before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. METHODS: We analyse data from the Netherlands Twin Register to examine pre-pandemic SRH scores (N = 16,127), pandemic SRH scores (N = 17,451), and SRH difference scores (N = 7464). Additionally, we perform bivariate genetic analyses to estimate genetic and environmental variance components in pre-pandemic and pandemic SRH, and estimate the genetic correlation to assess potential gene-environment interaction. RESULTS: The majority of the sample (66.7%) reported the same SRH before and during the pandemic, while 10.8% reported a decrease, and 22.5% an increase. Individuals who reported good/excellent SRH before the pandemic were most likely to report unchanged SRH during the pandemic, and individuals with bad/mediocre/reasonable SRH more often reported increased SRH. The bivariate longitudinal genetic model reveals no significant change in variance decomposition of SRH from before to during the pandemic, with a heritability estimate of 45% (CI 36%-52%). We found that the genetic correlation could be constrained to 1, and a moderate unique environmental correlation (rE = 0.49, CI = 0.37 to 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: We theorize that the increases in SRH are explained by uninfected individuals evaluating their health more positively than under normal circumstances (partly through social comparison with infected individuals), rather than actual improvements. As the same genes are expressed under different environmental exposures, these results imply no evidence for gene-environment interaction. While different environmental factors might influence SRH at the two time-points, the influence of environmental factors does not become relatively more important during the pandemic.

Genetic and environmental influences on quality of life: The COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment.

By treating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a natural experiment, we examine the influence of substantial environmental change (i.e., lockdown measures) on individual differences in quality of life (QoL) in the Netherlands. We compare QoL scores before the pandemic (N = 25,772) to QoL scores during the pandemic (N = 17,222) in a sample of twins and their family members. On a 10-point scale, we find a significant decrease in mean QoL from 7.73 (SD = 1.06) before the pandemic to 7.02 (SD = 1.36) during the pandemic (Cohen's d = 0.49). Additionally, variance decomposition shows an increase in unique environmental variance during the pandemic (0.30-1.08), and a decrease in the heritability estimate from 30.9% to 15.5%. We hypothesize that the increased environmental variance is the result of lockdown measures not impacting everybody equally. Whether these effects persist over longer periods and how they impact health inequalities remain topics for future investigation.

Gene-by-Crisis Interaction for Optimism and Meaning in Life: The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the restrictions to reduce the spread of the virus has had a large impact on daily life. We investigated the individual differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and first lockdown on optimism and meaning in life in a sample from the Netherlands Twin Register. Participants completed surveys before (N = 9964, Mean age: 48.2, SD = 14.4) and during the first months of the pandemic (i.e. April-May 2020, N = 17,464, Mean age: 44.6 SD = 14.8), with a subsample completing both surveys (N = 6461, Mean age T1: 48.8, SD = 14.5). We applied genetic covariance structure models to twin data to investigate changes in the genetic architecture of the outcome traits due to the pandemic and the interaction of genes with the environmental exposure. Although 56% and 35% of the sample was negatively affected by the pandemic in their optimism and meaning in life, many participants were stable (32% and 43%) or even showed increased optimism and meaning in life (11% and 22%). Subgroups, specifically women, higher educated people, and people with poorer health, experienced larger negative effects. During the first months of the pandemic, slightly lower heritability estimates for optimism and meaning in life (respectively 20% and 25%) were obtained compared to pre-pandemic (respectively 26% and 32%), although confidence intervals overlap. The lower than unity genetic correlations across time (.75 and .63) suggest gene-environment interactions, where the expression of genes that influence optimism and meaning in life differs before and during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is a strong exposure that leads to imbalanced effects on the well-being of individuals. Some people decrease in well-being, while others get more optimistic and consider their lives as more meaningful during the pandemic. These differences are partly explained by individual differences in genetic sensitivity to extreme environmental change. More knowledge on the person-specific response to specific environmental variables underlying these individual differences is urgently needed to prevent further inequality.

Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies.

Feelings of well-being and happiness fluctuate over time and contexts. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies can capture fluctuations in momentary behavior, and experiences by assessing these multiple times per day. Traditionally, EMA was performed using pen and paper. Recently, due to technological advances EMA studies can be conducted more easily with smartphones, a device ubiquitous in our society. The goal of this review was to evaluate the literature on smartphone-based EMA in well-being research in healthy subjects. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searching PubMed and Web of Science, we identified 53 studies using smartphone-based EMA of well-being. Studies were heterogeneous in designs, context, and measures. The average study duration was 12.8 days, with well-being assessed 2-12 times per day. Half of the studies included objective data (e.g. location). Only 47.2% reported compliance, indicating a mean of 71.6%. Well-being fluctuated daily and weekly, with higher well-being in evenings and weekends. These fluctuations disappeared when location and activity were accounted for. On average, being in nature and physical activity relates to higher well-being. Working relates to lower well-being, but workplace and company do influence well-being. The important advantages of using smartphones instead of other devices to collect EMAs are the easier data collection and flexible designs. Smartphone-based EMA reach far larger maximum sample sizes and more easily add objective data to their designs than palm-top/PDA studies. Smartphone-based EMA research is feasible to gain insight in well-being fluctuations and its determinants and offers the opportunity for parallel objective data collection. Most studies currently focus on group comparisons, while studies on individual differences in well-being patterns and fluctuations are lacking. We provide recommendations for future smartphone-based EMA research regarding measures, objective data and analyses.

Genetic evidence for a large overlap and potential bidirectional causal effects between resilience and well-being.

Resilience and well-being are strongly related. People with higher levels of well-being are more resilient after stressful life events or trauma and vice versa. Less is known about the underlying sources of overlap and causality between the constructs. In a sample of 11.304 twins and 2.572 siblings from the Netherlands Twin Register, we investigated the overlap and possible direction of causation between resilience (i.e. the absence of psychiatric symptoms despite negative life events) and well-being (i.e. satisfaction with life) using polygenic score (PGS) prediction, twin-sibling modelling, and the Mendelian Randomization Direction of Causality (MR-DoC) model. Longitudinal twin-sibling models showed significant phenotypic correlations between resilience and well-being (.41/.51 at time 1 and 2). Well-being PGS were predictive for both well-being and resilience, indicating that genetic factors influencing well-being also predict resilience. Twin-sibling modeling confirmed this genetic correlation (0.71) and showed a strong environmental correlation (0.93). In line with causality, both genetic (51%) and environmental (49%) factors contributed significantly to the covariance between resilience and well-being. Furthermore, the results of within-subject and MZ twin differences analyses were in line with bidirectional causality. Additionally, we used the MR-DoC model combining both molecular and twin data to test causality, while correcting for pleiotropy. We confirmed the causal effect from well-being to resilience, with the direct effect of well-being explaining 11% (T1) and 20% (T2) of the variance in resilience. Data limitations prevented us to test the directional effect from resilience to well-being with the MR-DoC model. To conclude, we showed a strong relation between well-being and resilience. A first attempt to quantify the direction of this relationship points towards a bidirectional causal effect. If replicated, the potential mutual effects can have implications for interventions to lower psychopathology vulnerability, as resilience and well-being are both negatively related to psychopathology.

Genetic Influences on the Covariance and Genetic Correlations in a Bivariate Twin Model: An Application to Well-Being.

The distinction between genetic influences on the covariance (or bivariate heritability) and genetic correlations in bivariate twin models is often not well-understood or only one is reported while the results show distinctive information about the relation between traits. We applied bivariate twin models in a large sample of adolescent twins, to disentangle the association between well-being (WB) and four complex traits (optimism, anxious-depressed symptoms (AD), aggressive behaviour (AGG), and educational achievement (EA)). Optimism and AD showed respectively a strong positive and negative phenotypic correlation with WB, the negative correlation of WB and AGG is lower and the correlation with EA is nearly zero. All four traits showed a large genetic contribution to the covariance with well-being. The genetic correlations of well-being with optimism and AD are strong and smaller for AGG and EA. We used the results of the models to explain what information is retrieved based on the bivariate heritability versus the genetic correlations and the (clinical) implications.

A selective effect of dopamine on information-seeking.

Humans are motivated to seek information from their environment. How the brain motivates this behavior is unknown. One speculation is that the brain employs neuromodulatory systems implicated in primary reward-seeking, in particular dopamine, to instruct information-seeking. However, there has been no causal test for the role of dopamine in information-seeking. Here, we show that administration of a drug that enhances dopamine function (dihydroxy-L-phenylalanine; L-DOPA) reduces the impact of valence on information-seeking. Specifically, while participants under Placebo sought more information about potential gains than losses, under L-DOPA this difference was not observed. The results provide new insight into the neurobiology of information-seeking and generates the prediction that abnormal dopaminergic function (such as in Parkinson's disease) will result in valence-dependent changes to information-seeking.

A Comparison of the ASEBA Adult Self Report (ASR) and the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM/18-59).

The adult self report (ASR) is a well-validated instrument with multiple scales relating to adult psychopathology. Recently, an 18-item version has been introduced, the brief problem monitor (BPM) to measure Internalizing behavior (INT), Externalizing behavior (EXT), and attention problems (ATT). The present study compared the BPM and ASR and investigated how well the BPM can serve as a supplement or an alternative for the ASR for specific clinical and scientific purposes. In a large sample of adult twins (N = 9.835) from the Netherlands Twin Register (NTR), we compared the internal consistency, clinical classification concordance, means, and variances of the ASR and BPM. Using the classical twin design, we investigated the genetic covariance structure. For external validation, the associations between subjective well-being and different subscales of the ASR and BPM were compared. The internal consistency of the BPM scales (around α = 0.75) was somewhat lower than the ASR (α ~ 0.85). The BPM Externalizing scale showed the lowest internal consistency (α = 0.63). ASR and BPM scores showed good clinical classification concordance (0.61-0.80) and high correlations (r > 0.88). A small reversed sex difference in the BPM Externalizing scale appeared (women > men). Genetic (0.34-0.54) and environmental components (0.46-0.66) explained the variance to a similar extent for the ASR and BPM. The phenotypic and genetic associations with well-being were comparable. In situations where sum scores are sufficient, the BPM performs as well as the longer ASR. Depending on the situation and goal, it is worth considering the BPM as an alternative for the ASR to reduce the participant burden.