Background Religiosity is a complex, multifaceted construct, comprising a variety of beliefs and behaviours. Much of the previous research that seeks to quantify religiosity has made use of variable-centred approaches, which place individuals on a continuum of religiosity. However, alternative approaches provide a way to examine different types of religiosity, represented by heterogeneous classes of religious (non)belief. The aim of this study was to apply a person-centred approach to understanding religious beliefs. Methods The present study used latent class analysis to identify classes of belief and non-belief in mothers (n=12429) and their partners (n=9953) from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a large cohort study based in the UK. For this, we used a range of religious belief indicators. We also examined a number of socioeconomic factors, to identify differences between classes, using logistic regression. Results We identified four different classes of religiosity which we named Highly Religious, Moderately Religious, Agnostic, and Atheist, with similar configurations in both men and women. We also found that class membership was associated with several socioeconomic factors. Conclusions The findings provide an insight into different patterns of religiosity in adults in the UK. These classes could be used as exposures in future studies of religiosity and how it relates to a variety of outcomes in both mothers, partners, and their offspring.

Climate change is having a substantial—and increasingly severe—impact on our planet, affecting people’s health, security and livelihoods. As a consequence, the concept of ‘climate anxiety’ has recently been developed to characterize the psychological and emotional impact of concern over climate change. However, whether climate anxiety—or less extreme manifestations such as climate concern—impacts subsequent mental health is uncertain. Numerous studies have identified an association between climate anxiety and worse mental health, but as most of this research is cross-sectional it is impossible to infer the direction of causation (e.g. does climate anxiety cause broader mental health, or do broader mental health problems cause climate anxiety, or is there bidirectional causation?). In this paper, we used longitudinal data from young adults (aged approx. 30 years old) in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based in the UK. We first aimed to answer the following research question: does concern regarding climate change cause subsequent mental health? Our outcomes were a range of validated mental health scales for depression, anxiety and well-being, and analyses adjusted for a range of baseline confounders and prior mental health to try and estimate an unbiased causal effect. As a second research question, we explored whether the association between climate concern and mental health is moderated by whether participants engage in climate action and whether they believe that individual actions can mitigate the impacts of climate change. We found little evidence for a causal effect of climate concern on subsequent mental health or well-being, or for moderation of this relationship by these climate change beliefs and behaviours. Our results suggest that—in this population of young adults in the UK, at least—concerns regarding climate change do not, on average, appear to cause subsequent mental health issues. However, we stress that these results apply only to climate concern, and may not be generalizable to more extreme manifestations of climate anxiety.

Relations between religion and mental health have been studied extensively, yet whether associations are causal remains uncertain. Here, we use longitudinal data from the parental generation of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), based in the UK, to assess: i) whether religiosity may cause subsequent depression and anxiety; ii) whether depression and anxiety may cause subsequent religiosity; and iii) whether there are gender differences in the above associations. All analyses were pre-registered, and adjusted for baseline confounders, exposures and outcomes in an attempt to rule out reverse causality and confounding bias. We found little conclusive evidence that religiosity was associated with subsequent mental health, or that mental health was associated with subsequent religiosity. Some weak associations were reported, but effect sizes were small and largely consistent with null effects. Small differences by gender were found, with religiosity marginally associated with better mental health in women and worse mental health in men, but the inconsistency of the results and the wide margins of error mean that firm conclusions cannot be made. In sum, in this UK population we find little evidence for bidirectional causation between religion and mental health, or for large differences in these associations by gender.

Individual actions are crucial to mitigating the impact of anthropogenic climate change. Understanding the factors shaping individuals' climate beliefs and behaviours is therefore essential to help encourage sustainable action among the public. One such factor is religion, which - based on theoretical expectations and prior literature - could influence climate beliefs and behaviours, either positively or negatively. To understand the impact of religion in more detail, we used data from two generations of a large-scale longitudinal population-based UK birth cohort study (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; ALSPAC). We explored whether a range of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours (religious belief, identity and attendance, in addition to latent classes of religiosity) were associated with a number of climate beliefs and behaviours (e.g., belief in, and concern over, climate change, and pro-environmental actions taken for climate change reasons), adjusted for a range of sociodemographic confounders. Analyses were repeated in three cohorts: the study offspring, their mothers, and the mother's partners. Overall, we observed a broadly 'U'-shaped or 'J'-shaped association between religiosity and climate beliefs and behaviours in the parental generation; participants with intermediate levels of religiosity displayed the lowest levels of belief, concern and behaviours, while the most religious participants displayed similar, and sometimes greater, awareness and actions relative to the least religious. These patterns were not replicated in the offspring generation, with little relationship observed between religion and climate questions. These results indicate a complex association between religion and climate beliefs and behaviours, which varies depending on the religion exposure, the climate outcome, and the generation. The reason for these findings is uncertain, although they perhaps suggest that, among the highly religious in the older generation, religious attendance may promote positive climate beliefs and behaviours.

Climate change is causing a suite of environmental and social issues. Understanding patterns of climate change beliefs and behaviours, and the factors which shape these attitudes and actions, is therefore essential. This data note describes the novel data collection of climate belief and behaviour questions embedded within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a longitudinal population-based birth cohort in southwest England. Two generations of ALSPAC participants completed the questionnaires containing these climate questions: the Generation-1 (G1) offspring (n=4,341), Generation-0 (G0) mothers (n=4,793), and the G0 mother’s partners (n=2,111). The questions asked about: belief in climate change; concern over climate change; whether climate change is caused by human activity; whether individual behaviours can impact climate change; the impacts of climate change in the participants’ local area; and whether participants were engaging in any of 17 pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., recycling more, reducing meat/dairy consumption) for climate change and/or other reasons. The majority of participants believed the climate was definitely changing (~80%), were somewhat or very concerned about climate change (~90%) and attributed most or all of climate change to human activity (~75%), with only small differences between the generations. On average, participants reported engaging in between 5 and 6 actions because of concerns regarding climate change (5.8 in G0 mothers; 5.2 in G1 offspring and G0 partners). Associations with sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic background) were relatively weak, but positive relationships between highest level of education and greater climate change belief, concern and behaviours were evident. Increased climate belief and concern also predicted engaging in more pro-environmental actions. Responses to these climate questions were more similar within-families. This data note provides important information for future users of these data, as well as discussing some of the key strengths, limitations and considerations for data users.

Background: Previous research has examined associations between parental religiosity and offspring mental health, but findings are inconsistent, and few studies have focused on late adolescence when mental health problems are more common. This study examines the prospective relationship between maternal religiosity and offspring mental health in late adolescence. Methods: We used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children to examine the prospective association between latent classes of maternal religiosity (Highly Religious, Moderately Religious, Agnostic, Atheist) and self-reported mental health problems including common mental disorders, ICD 10 depression, depressive symptoms, generalised anxiety symptoms, self-harm acts, self-harm thoughts, and disordered eating outcomes at age 17-18 years (n = 7714). We used multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for maternal mental health, maternal adverse childhood experiences, and socioeconomic variables. Results: Compared with adolescent offspring of parents in the Agnostic class, offspring of the Atheist class had increased odds of depressive symptoms ((1.31[1.03,1.67]) and offspring of the Highly Religious class had increased odds of self-harm thoughts (1.43[1.04,1.97]). There was also weak evidence (95 % confidence intervals crossed the null) of increased odds of depression in the offspring of Moderately religious and Highly religious classes (1.26 [0.97,1.65], and 1.30 [0.99,1.70], respectively)) and self-harm acts in the offspring of the Highly religious class (1.31[0.98,1.74]). There was no evidence of associations with the disordered eating outcomes or generalised anxiety disorder symptoms. Conclusions: We found evidence that adolescents whose mothers are Atheist, Moderately Religious, and Highly Religious are more likely to have depressive symptoms than those whose mothers are Agnostic. There was also evidence for an increased likelihood of self-harm (thoughts and acts) amongst adolescents of Highly Religious parents. Further research is needed to examine possible mechanisms that could explain these observed associations as well as a repetition of our analyses in a non-UK sample.

BackgroundVaccines reduce the severity of symptoms, and risk of hospitalisation and death from infectious diseases. Yet, vaccination hesitancy persists. Research identifying psychological risk factors for vaccination hesitancy is limited and reports conflicting results. This study sought to address these inconsistencies and explore the role of personality and cognitive ability in COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and uptake in a prospective cohort study.MethodsData came from young adults (Generation-1; G1) and their mothers (Generation-0; G0) in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Multinomial logistic regressions, adjusting for several sociodemographic confounders, were used to explore whether personality and cognitive ability were associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and uptake. 4,960 G1 and 4,853 G0 mothers were included in the study population.FindingsAmong G1, 38.4% exhibited vaccination hesitancy, yet 91.9% of the cohort received the vaccine. In adjusted models, higher levels of openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and cognitive ability were associated with an increased probability of wanting the vaccine. Similarly, higher levels of agreeableness, openness and cognitive ability were associated with an increased probability of vaccination uptake. However, the evidence of associations with vaccine uptake were generally weaker than with vaccination hesitancy. 56.7% of the offspring who did not want the vaccine either received the vaccine or intended to, whilst 43.3% still had no intention.Among G0 mothers, 25.6% were vaccination hesitant, yet 99.0% of the cohort received the vaccine. 3.1% said they did not want the vaccine; approximately 80% of these either received the vaccine or intended to. We found inconclusive evidence for an association between cognitive ability and vaccination hesitancy among G0 mothers.InterpretationThis study identified psychological factors associated with vaccination hesitancy and uptake. If these associations are causal, these findings may help design more effective vaccination hesitancy interventions.

Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to both humans and wider biodiversity. However, cumulatively, individuals’ actions can help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Understanding the factors which shape individuals’ beliefs about climate change, and their environmental behaviours, is therefore crucial. Here, we explore whether individual differences – big-5 personality traits and cognitive ability – are associated with climate beliefs and behaviours, using longitudinal data from a UK birth cohort study. Individual differences were measured when the participants were teenagers (aged 13 to 15 years), with climate beliefs and behaviours assessed at approximately age 30 years. These climate beliefs and behaviours included: belief that the climate is changing, concern over climate change, whether humans are to blame for climate change, whether individual actions can mitigate climate change, and whether they were undertaking a range of pro-environmental behaviours for climate reasons (e.g., reducing air travel, reducing meat/dairy consumption). Regression models were used to explore the associations between individual differences and climate belief and behaviour outcomes, adjusting for a range of relevant sociodemographic confounders. Overall, we found consistent positive associations between agreeableness, openness to experience and cognitive ability scores and environmental knowledge and action. Weaker, and more inconsistent, associations were reported for extraversion, conscientiousness and emotional stability. These results suggest that individual differences may shape an individual’s beliefs and actions regarding climate change, and indicates groups where climate information campaigns could be targeted.

Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to both humans and wider biodiversity. However, cumulatively, individuals’ actions can help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Understanding the factors which shape individuals’ beliefs about climate change, and their environmental behaviours, is therefore crucial. Here, we explore whether individual differences—Big-5 personality traits and cognitive ability—are associated with climate beliefs and behaviours, using longitudinal data from a UK birth cohort study. Individual differences were measured when the participants were teenagers (aged 13 to 15 years), with climate beliefs and behaviours assessed at approximately age 30 years. These climate beliefs and behaviours included: belief that the climate is changing, concern over climate change, whether humans are to blame for climate change, whether individual actions can mitigate climate change, and whether they were undertaking a range of pro-environmental behaviours for climate reasons (e.g., reducing air travel, reducing meat/dairy consumption). Regression models were used to explore the associations between individual differences and climate belief and behaviour outcomes, adjusting for a range of relevant sociodemographic confounders. Overall, we found consistent positive associations between agreeableness, openness to experience and cognitive ability scores and environmental knowledge and action. Weaker, and more inconsistent, associations were reported for extraversion, conscientiousness and emotional stability. These results suggest that individual differences may shape an individual’s beliefs and actions regarding climate change, and potentially indicates groups where climate information campaigns could be targeted.

Introduction: With the rising global burden of mental health issues – namely depression and anxiety – particularly among adolescents and young adults, it is crucial to investigate the factors that influence the development of these mental health outcomes over the life course. Here, we explored the associations between individual differences – personality and cognitive ability – in adolescence with mental health problems in later adolescence and young adulthood using longitudinal data from a UK birth cohort study (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; ALSPAC). Methods: Personality was measured at age 13 using the ‘Big-5’ personality questionnaire, with cognitive ability assessed at age 15 via the Weschler abbreviated scale of intelligence. ICD-10 classifications for mild depression and generalised anxiety disorder were assessed at ages 17 and 24 via the computerised clinical interview schedule (revised). Results: In logistic regression models adjusted for a range of relevant sociodemographic and prior mental health confounders, higher extraversion and emotional stability scores were associated with lower rates of depression and anxiety, while higher openness to experience scores were associated with increased rates. Agreeableness, conscientiousness and cognitive ability had little-to-no association with mental health outcomes. Results were largely consistent at both ages 17 and 24, and when using multiple imputation to account for missing data and potential selection bias.Conclusion: By using a large-scale longitudinal cohort with a range of relevant confounders, these results provide further evidence that personality traits may potentially cause subsequent mental health outcomes and could be used to help identify high-risk individuals.

Longitudinal data on religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviors (RSBB) are essential for understanding both how religion shapes our lives and the factors determining religiosity. Despite this importance, there are few longitudinal studies with detailed and repeated RSBB data. Using data spanning nearly 30 years from the parental generation of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based in the Southwest of England, we describe individual-level changes in various aspects of self-reported RSBB (religious belief, affiliation, and attendance, among others) measured on four occasions (pregnancy, plus 5, 9, and 28 years post-partum; approx. 3600 mothers and 1200 partners have data at all four time-points). Although RSBBs were generally consistent over time, a shift towards non-religiosity was observed; exceptions included Roman Catholic affiliation, which was remarkably stable over three decades, and religious attendance, which increased from pregnancy to 5 years, before declining at 28 years. Most changes in RSBB were minor, e.g., between "yes" and "not sure" regarding religious belief, rather than between "yes" and "no." We also provide a simple illustrative example of how these longitudinal data can be analyzed. In addition to describing these longitudinal patterns, this paper will help inform future research using ALSPAC's longitudinal RSBB data.

Background:We explored associations between possible demographic and socioeconomic causes of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours (RSBB) in the offspring generation of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Methods:We examined approximately 4,450 offspring aged 28 years with RSBB data from a prospective birth cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England. Three RSBB outcome measures were assessed: religious belief (belief in God/a divine power; yes/not sure/no), religious affiliation (Christian/none/other) and religious attendance (frequency of attendance at a place of worship). We explored age- and sex-adjusted associations between 35 demographic and socioeconomic exposures and each of the three RSBB outcomes using multinomial regression. Exposure-sex interactions were also examined. Results:Some sociodemographic factors were associated with RSBB in this cohort; for instance, being female and from an ethnicity other than White were associated with increased religiosity across all domains. For many other exposures, however, associations were frequently null or inconsistent, often depending on the specific exposure and outcome combination. As an example, higher educational attainment was associated with higher rates of religious attendance, but not with religious belief or affiliation; in contrast, higher income was associated with lower levels of religiosity. No consistent interactions between sex and the exposures on RSBB were found. Effect sizes were also rather weak, with most pseudo- R 2 values below 0.5% and a maximum of 1.2%. Conclusions:The results highlight that several demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with RSBB in this cohort. However, the number of these associations, and their magnitude, is smaller than comparable results from the parental generation of these offspring, suggesting that patterns of sociodemographic factors associated with RSBB differ between these generations. In addition to describing these associations, this paper will help inform future studies using these data, particularly regarding the choice of potential sociodemographic confounders.

BACKGROUND:Previous research has examined the role of parental religious belief in offspring mental health, but has revealed inconsistent results, and suffered from a number of limitations. The aim of this study is to examine the prospective relationship between maternal religiosity and offspring mental health and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS:We used latent classes of religious belief (Highly religious, Moderately religious, Agnostic, Atheist) in mothers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children from 1990, and examined their association with parent-reported mental health outcomes and self-reported psychosocial outcomes in their children at age 7-8 (n = 6079 for mental health outcomes and n = 5235 for psychosocial outcomes). We used inverse probability weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for maternal mental health, adverse childhood experience, and socioeconomic variables. RESULTS:There was evidence for a greater risk of internalising problems among the offspring of the Highly religious and Moderately religious classes [e.g. for depression; OR 1.40. 95% CI (1.07-1.85), OR 1.48, 95% CI (1.17-1.87)], and greater risk of externalising problems in the offspring of the Atheist class [e.g. for ADHD; OR 1.41, 95% CI (1.08-1.85)], compared to the offspring of the Agnostic class. CONCLUSIONS:These novel findings provide evidence associations between maternal religiosity and offspring mental health differ when examined using a person-centred approach, compared to the previously used variable-centred approaches. Our findings also suggest that differences may exist in the relationship between religious (non)belief and mental health variables when comparing the UK and US.

Vaccines are a powerful and relatively safe tool to protect against a range of serious diseases. Nonetheless, a sizeable minority of people express ‘vaccination hesitancy’. Accordingly, understanding the bases of this hesitancy represents a significant public health challenge. In the present study we sought to examine the role of Big Five personality traits and general intelligence as predictors of vaccination hesitancy, across two vaccination types, in a large (N= 9667) sample of UK adults drawn from the Understanding Society longitudinal household study. We found that lower general intelligence was associated with COVID-19 and seasonal flu vaccination hesitancy, and lower neuroticism was associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Although the self-reported reasons for being vaccine hesitant indicated a range of factors were important to people, lower general intelligence was associated with virtually all of these reasons. In contrast, Big 5 personality traits showed more nuanced patterns of association. These findings provide important insights into vaccination hesitancy and help to reconcile some of the inconsistencies found in previous literature.

Advances in gene-editing technology have important implications for the treatment and prevention of disease. Accordingly, it is important to understand public perceptions towards gene editing, as the public’s willingness to endorse gene editing may be as important as technological breakthroughs themselves. Previous research has almost exclusively examined attitudes towards gene editing on specific issues, but has not addressed how attitudes towards gene editing across a range of issues coalesce in individuals: that is, the degree to which discrete, heterogeneous attitudinal profiles exist versus a simple support/oppose continuum. Here, we addressed this issue using latent class analysis on data from The Pew Research Center ( N = 4726; US residents) across a wide range of gene-editing topics. We found that attitudes towards gene editing cohere into 10 distinct latent classes that showed some evidence of a support/oppose continuum, but also for clear qualitative differences between each class, even with support or oppose classes, on a number of issues. The most opposed classes significantly differed from the supporter classes in age, sex, political ideology and self-rated knowledge. These findings provide evidence that attitudes towards gene editing are heterogeneous and public discourse, as well as policy making need to consider a range of arguments when evaluating this technology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a significant toll on the global population, but biotechnology has a big role to play in arresting the spread of the virus. However, the adoption of biotechnologies may be held back by cognitive biases. In particular, omission bias – the observation that people are more sensitive to the negative outcomes of acting than to those of failing to act – has been suggested to influence vaccination decision making. Omission bias might also underpin attitudes towards newer biotechnologies. In this study, we explored the role of omission bias in vaccination, gene editing, and nanotechnology decision-making using a US sample (N = 613). We examined participant’s risk choices across these three biotechnologies, focussing on the point at which they would use the respective biotechnology to treat a fictional illness (COVID-23). Although our findings are nuanced, overall we observed evidence consistent with an omission bias across all three biotechnologies.

AbstractRecent advances in gene editing technology promise much for medical advances and human well-being. However, in parallel domains, there have been objections to the use of such biotechnologies. Moreover, the psychological factors that govern the willingness to use gene editing technology have been underexplored to date. In this registered report, we sought to test whether pathogen disgust sensitivity is linked with opposition to gene editing. U.K.-based adult participants (N= 347) were recruited to this study. Gene editing attitudes reflected two largely distinct latent factors concerning enhancing human traits and treating medical disorders. In contrast to prediction, pathogen disgust sensitivity was related to greater support for gene editing in both of these domains. This result suggests that gene editing, at least in the current study, is not viewed as pathogenic, or that the perceived benefits of gene editing outweigh any perceived pathogen risk.