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

Abstract

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.

The association between metabolite concentrations and wellbeing in adults

“…Unlike the genome, metabolite levels are highly dynamic. Even though wellbeing is assumed to be relatively stable across time [46][47][48][49][50][51] , differences between the time of biological sample and survey collection may have influenced our results, since metabolite concentrations change over time and conditions 18,19 . Sensitivity analyses with a time difference below 5 years, resulting in a reduction in sample size of 4.93% -4514 individuals remained -, did not result in notable differences with the main analyses (see Supplementary Analyses and Supplementary Table 3).…”