What Are the Effects of Early Childhood Exposure to Environmental Lead on Personality?

Abstract In the first analysis purporting to causally link environmental pollution to personality, Schwaba and colleagues leveraged a natural experiment driven by the United States. They used the Clean Air Act to assess the impact of decreased atmospheric lead on the “big five” personality traits. Using data from an online personality test taken by more than 1.2 million U.S. residents, Schwaba et al. reported that people born after lead levels had peaked in their county of birth had more mature, psychologically healthy personalities in adulthood (higher agreeableness and conscientiousness, and lower neuroticism) than cohorts born earlier and exposed to higher levels of atmospheric lead. One concern with their findings is that personality differences among people born in different periods could come from factors unrelated to lead, for example, access to abortion and birth control, or demographic, cultural, or technological changes. Schwaba et al. recognized this possibility but did not fully explore it. When we account for cohort-wide changes by introducing birth year fixed effects into Schwaba et al. ’s models, the estimated effects of the lead phaseout on personality largely disappear, becoming indistinguishable from zero while remaining precise. Meanwhile, the estimated birth year fixed effects are jointly significant, suggesting differences in personality traits across cohorts. These results indicate that any effects of the lead phaseout on more mature, psychologically healthy adult personalities are not consistently observable in the data used by Schwaba et al. More broadly, they caution against making causal inferences without controlling for time period effects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.7
Primary Topic
Noise Effects and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What Are the Effects of Early Childhood Exposure to Environmental Lead on Personality?

Jeff Potter, Joshua Murphy, Arthur G. Fraas, Samuel D. Gosling et al.
1 links
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Noise Effects and Management
article

What Are the Effects of Early Childhood Exposure to Environmental Lead on Personality?

Jeff Potter, Joshua Murphy, Arthur G. Fraas, Samuel D. Gosling, Randall Lutter, Qinrui Xiahou
article en

Abstract

Abstract In the first analysis purporting to causally link environmental pollution to personality, Schwaba and colleagues leveraged a natural experiment driven by the United States. They used the Clean Air Act to assess the impact of decreased atmospheric lead on the “big five” personality traits. Using data from an online personality test taken by more than 1.2 million U.S. residents, Schwaba et al. reported that people born after lead levels had peaked in their county of birth had more mature, psychologically healthy personalities in adulthood (higher agreeableness and conscientiousness, and lower neuroticism) than cohorts born earlier and exposed to higher levels of atmospheric lead. One concern with their findings is that personality differences among people born in different periods could come from factors unrelated to lead, for example, access to abortion and birth control, or demographic, cultural, or technological changes. Schwaba et al. recognized this possibility but did not fully explore it. When we account for cohort-wide changes by introducing birth year fixed effects into Schwaba et al. ’s models, the estimated effects of the lead phaseout on personality largely disappear, becoming indistinguishable from zero while remaining precise. Meanwhile, the estimated birth year fixed effects are jointly significant, suggesting differences in personality traits across cohorts. These results indicate that any effects of the lead phaseout on more mature, psychologically healthy adult personalities are not consistently observable in the data used by Schwaba et al. More broadly, they caution against making causal inferences without controlling for time period effects.

Journal of Benefit-Cost AnalysisVol. 16(1)
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (US), Austin College (US), Resources For The Future (US), University of Greenwich (GB), The University of Texas at Austin (US), University of Hong Kong (HK)
Smith Richardson Foundation, Sid W. Richardson Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Noise Effects and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.