Change in five-factor model personality traits during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus and the strategies to slow it have disrupted just about every aspect of our lives. Such disruption may be reflected in changes in psychological function. The present study used a pre-posttest design to test whether Five Factor Model personality traits changed with the coronavirus outbreak in the United States. Participants (N = 2,137) were tested in early February 2020 and again during the President's 15 Days to Slow the Spread guidelines. In contrast to the preregistered hypotheses, Neuroticism decreased across these six weeks, particularly the facets of Anxiety and Depression, and Conscientiousness did not change. Interestingly, there was some evidence that the rapid changes in the social context had changed the meaning of an item. Specifically, an item about going to work despite being sick was a good indicator of conscientiousness before COVID-19, but the interpretation of it changed with the pandemic. In sum, the unexpected small decline in Neuroticism suggests that, during the acute phase of the coronavirus outbreak, feelings of anxiety and distress may be attributed more to the pandemic than to one's personality.

Introduction

The world is facing an extraordinary crisis. The novel coronavirus that emerged and started to spread at the end of 2019 is now reported in nearly every country and territory in the world [1]. The response to control the spread has been equally extraordinary. During the acute phase of the pandemic, entire countries were put on lock down to slow the spread [2]. The United States restricted international travel [3] and most states issued varying degrees of “stay at home” orders [4]. Such measures are essential to slow the spread of the virus [5]. The concerns over the virus and the stress associated with the social restrictions may have acute psychological consequences [6].

Here we test whether there are acute changes in Five Factor Model (FFM; [7]) personality traits and facets in response to the emerging coronavirus pandemic. FFM traits are stable individual differences that tend to be resistant to normative stressful life events [8]. Although typically stable, evidence from the psychopathology literature [9] and intervention research [10] indicates that traits can and do change in response to distress and treatment for distress, respectively. The coronavirus outbreak and measures to control its spread have disrupted most aspects of life, including basic motives (e.g., relationships, work) and daily activities that have been fundamental to work on adult personality development [11].

Using a sample that was first assessed in late January and early February 2020 and then again in mid-March 2020 during the President’s 15 Days to Slow the Spread guidelines [12], we tested for acute personality change in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Under normal circumstances, there is no reason to expect that personality would change over such a short period of time. Given the extraordinary nature of the coronavirus pandemic, and the drastic measures that have been taken to control its spread, however, personality may be reactive to these rapidly changing events. We tested the preregistered hypothesis that Neuroticism, particularly the anxiety facet of this trait, increased between pre- and post-test because the collective worry and anxiety over the virus would increase a trait tendency toward worry and anxiety. We also hypothesized that Conscientiousness, particularly facets related to responsibility, would increase between pre- and post-test because the public health messaging on the importance of personal responsibility to control the spread (e.g., handwashing, social distancing) would consolidate into a greater tendency toward rule-following and responsibility (i.e., conscientiousness), particularly in relation to others. We did not make directional hypotheses for the other three traits. Exploratory analyses examined whether there were larger changes in adults older than 65, males, and those in isolation/quarantine status because of the greater risk in these groups.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure

The present study used a pre-post design with all participants exposed to the stressor (coronavirus pandemic). Preregistration for this study can be found at https://osf.io/vqnh8/?view_only=8660007bc8ef4f168e07af15f9c49f43. The Institutional Review Board at the Florida State University approved this study (STUDY00000003). Prior to both surveys, potential participants were given a brief description of the survey including the content area of the questionnaires. To continue with the questionnaire, individuals had to indicate that they understood the survey would include health-related questions, that they were 18 years or older, and that they wanted to participate in the study. Individuals who clicked yes were directed to the survey; individuals who clicked no were routed out of the survey. Documentation of informed consent was waived because the data were collected and analyzed anonymously from web-based surveys.

Pretest

An online survey was fielded between January 31 and February 10, 2020 (not preregistered). At this time, the coronavirus was spreading in Asia but had not spread yet in the United States. The purpose of this original survey was to examine the physical, social, and cognitive correlates of FFM personality traits and well-being across adulthood. We contracted with Dynata (www.dynata.com) to recruit participants to complete a Qualtrics survey administered by the Florida State University College of Medicine. Participants were sampled from across the United States and stratified in equal numbers (n = 500) across seven age bands: 18–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70 and older. The adolescent age band was smaller than the other 10-year age bands because it was restricted to participants who could consent legally to participate without consent from a parent or legal guardian. The sample was also stratified by gender (50%/50% male/female) and race (20% African American). The stratification did not go as intended in the original data collection and there was an oversample of participants between 30–59 years old and few participants who were 18 or 19. More participants in the 18–19 year-old age band were recruited and tested to improve representation in this age group. As such, in the final sample, participants between 30 and 59 years old were oversampled relative to the other age groups, and the overall sample size was larger than originally planned. A total of 3,963 participants had valid personality data at pretest (See S1 Fig for a flowchart of participant inclusion at pretest).

Posttest

A second online survey was fielded between March 18 and March 29, 2020 (preregistered). Participants were again recruited through Dynata. All participants who completed the personality measure at pretest were invited to complete the posttest survey. The exception was participants who had left the Dynata panel in between pretest and posttest. Dynata does not recontact people who have left their panels, and we could not contact them directly because we had no personally identifying or contact information for any participant. When participants clicked on the link from Dynata, the description of the survey was similar to the description of the first survey, except that participants were told that they would also be asked questions about current events. Participants were also told that the survey would include some questions that were similar to what they might have been asked before and that it was important to answer the questions, even if the questions had been answered before. The personality measure was embedded in a larger survey block that included questions about other aspects of psychological functioning, health, and health-related behavior (see preregistration for full questionnaire). The survey also included a block of questionnaires about COVID-19. These two blocks were randomly counterbalanced across participants. There was no effect of order on any of the results reported below.

A total of 2,137 participants had valid data on personality traits at both pretest and posttest (See S1 Fig for a flowchart of participant inclusion at posttest). Participants in the final analytic sample were from all 50 states and Washington, DC and Puerto Rico and participated in numbers roughly proportional to the population of the state/DC/PR (i.e., sample sizes were larger in populous states, such as California and New York, and smaller in less populous states, such as North Dakota and Wyoming).

Attrition analyses indicated that compared to those with posttest data, participants who did not have posttest data were younger (d = .92, p = .000), more likely to be female (χ2 = 66.754, p = .000), more likely to be African American (χ2 = 45.345, p = .000), more likely to be Latinx ethnicity (χ2 = 93.122, p = .000), had less education (d = .38, p = .000), scored higher in Neuroticism (d = .41, p = .000), higher in Openness (d = .07, p = .031), lower in Agreeableness (d = .26, p = .000) and Conscientiousness (d = .45, p = .000); there was no difference in Extraversion (d = .02, p = .520). Accounting for age and sex differences in attrition, the effect size for the difference by attrition was reduced for Neuroticism (d = .09, p = .007), Conscientiousness (d = .12, p = .000) and Agreeableness (d = .01, p = .723); there was a larger difference in Openness (d = .13, p = .000).

Measures

Personality traits

FFM personality traits were measured with the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2; [13]), a 60-item measure of the five broad domains and three more circumscribed facets per domain. Items completed the sentence stem, “I am someone who…” and measured Neuroticism (e.g., worries a lot), Extraversion (e.g., is outgoing, sociable), Openness (e.g., is complex, a deep thinker), Agreeableness (e.g., is compassionate, has a soft heart), and Conscientiousness (e.g., is systematic, likes keeping things in order). Responses were made on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were reverse scored in the direction of the trait label when necessary and the mean taken across items. In addition to the five broad domains, three facets for each trait were scored: Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility for Neuroticism, Sociability, Assertiveness, and Energy Level for Extraversion, Intellectual Curiosity, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Creative Imagination for Openness, Compassion, Respectfulness, and Trust for Agreeableness, and Organization, Productiveness, and Responsibility for Conscientiousness. The same measure was administered at both assessments.

Two additional facets of Conscientiousness were measured at both assessments: The Responsibility facet from Roberts and colleagues’ facet measure of Conscientiousness [14], and the Dutifulness facet from the NEO-PI-3 [15]. The Responsibility facet was measured with four items (e.g., “I go out of my way to keep my promises.”). The Dutifulness facet was measured with eight items (e.g., “When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through.”). All items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were reverse scored in the direction of the trait label when necessary and the mean taken across items. The same measures were administered at both assessments.

Quarantine/Isolation status

At posttest, participants responded (no/yes) to the item “In the last month, I have been in quarantine/isolation because of the coronavirus.” This item did not differentiate between quarantine for medical reasons and voluntary isolation, and thus it was not possible to disentangle the potential effects of the purpose of the quarantine/isolation.

Covariates

Participants reported their age in years, gender identification (male, female, transgender, other/unknown), race, ethnicity, and education (from 1 = less than high school to 7 = PhD or equivalent). Gender was coded to compare females (= 1) to males (= 0). Participants who identified as transgender/other/unknown (n = 11) were included with the female category (results did not vary if these participants were not included in the analysis). Race was coded as African American/black (= 1) compared to all others (= 0). Ethnicity was coded as Latinx/Hispanic (= 1) compared to all others (= 0). Participants of other races (e.g., Asian) were categorized with the “all others” group. In some analyses, age was coded into older adults (65 and older; = 1) versus younger and middle-aged adults (18–64; = 0) because coronavirus poses a greater threat to older than younger adults [16].

Analytic strategy

Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for mean trait change between pre- and post-test. This analysis was run for each trait and facet. We then used Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to test whether trait change varied by age group and gender (exploratory analyses in the preregistration). In additional exploratory analyses (not preregistered), we tested whether personality change varied by quarantine/isolation status. With a repeated measures design and a sample of 2,137 participants, we had >90% power to detect a small change (d = .1) at alpha < .05 (two-tailed).

Results

Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. The test-retest correlation was high for all five traits (≥.80), supporting the reliability of the measure and data quality. We report the results by personality domain, starting with the two domains that were hypothesized to change. Note that the results of the preregistered analyses are presented in Table 2, the results of the preregistered exploratory analyses for age and gender are presented in S2 and S3 Tables, respectively, and the results of the non-preregistered exploratory analysis for isolation are presented in Table 3.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Demographic Factor	Mean (SD) or % (n)
Age (years)	51.022 (16.608)
Gender
Male	51.1% (1091)
Female	47.9% (1024)
Other/unknown	1.1% (22)
Race
African American or Black	16.9% (361)
Not African American	83.1% (1776)
Ethnicity
Latinx or Hispanic	10.7% (229)
Not Latinx	89.3% (1908)
Educationa	4.169 (1.517)
Quarantine/Isolationb
Yes	24.9% (524)
No	75.1% (1582)

N = 2,137.

a Reported on a scale from 1 (less than high school) to 7 (PhD or equivalent).

b n = 2,106 due to missing data.

Table 2

Mean change in personality traits between pretest and posttest.

Personality Trait	Pretest		Posttest		Time	P	η2
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Neuroticism	2.611	.779	2.576	.800	F(1,2136) = 11.653	.001	.005
Extraversion	3.120	.641	3.138	.645	F(1,2136) = 4.821	.028	.002
Openness	3.454	.624	3.465	.639	F(1,2136) = 1.546	.214	.001
Agreeableness	3.694	.637	3.691	.650	F(1,2136) = .083	.774	.000
Conscientiousness	3.859	.704	3.859	.724	F(1,2136) = .002	.962	.000
Neuroticism Facets
Anxiety	2.912	.895	2.864	.890	F(1,2136) = 11.663	.001	.005
Depression	2.430	.899	2.394	.917	F(1,2136) = 6.910	.009	.003
Emotional Volatility	2.492	.872	2.470	.882	F(1,2136) = 2.539	.111	.001
Extraversion Facets
Sociability	2.926	.900	2.908	.902	F(1,2136) = 2.008	.157	.001
Assertiveness	3.163	.770	3.200	.782	F(1,2136) = 8.645	.003	.004
Energy Level	3.270	.761	3.306	.761	F(1,2136) = 7.848	.005	.004
Openness Facets
Curiosity	3.549	.727	3.557	.729	F(1,2136) = .514	.473	.000
Aesthetic Sensitivity	3.286	.831	3.300	.839	F(1,2136) = 1.009	.296	.000
Creative Imagination	3.527	.768	3.537	.781	F(1,2136) = .574	.449	.000
Agreeableness Facets
Compassion	3.770	.772	3.777	.776	F(1,2136) = .241	.623	.000
Respectfulness	3.988	.762	3.967	.776	F(1,2136) = 3.281	.070	.002
Trust	3.323	.748	3.331	.751	F(1,2136) = .384	.535	.000
Conscientiousness Facets
Organization	3.890	.829	3.866	.840	(1,2136) = 3.300	.069	.002
Productiveness	3.793	.808	3.820	.813	(1,2136) = 5.073	.024	.002
Responsibility	3.895	.767	3.888	.775	(1,2136) = .294	.588	.000
Responsibilitya^	3.988	.763	3.984	.778	(1,2064) = .060	.807	.000
Dutifulnessa	3.897	.610	3.859	.603	(1,2024) = 12.037	.001	.006

N = 2,137.

a Ns vary due to missing data.

^From Roberts et al. [14].

Table 3

Interaction between time and isolation on change in personality traits.

Personality Trait	Pre		Post		Time	Isolation	Time x Isolation
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Neuroticism
Not in isolation	2.552	.785	2.500	.801	F(1,2104) = 3.030,	F(1,2104) = 30.896,	F(1,2104) = 6.186,
In isolation	2.802	.772	2.811	.754	p = .082	p = .000	p = .013
Extraversion
Not in isolation	3.126	.649	3.152	.656	F(1,2104) = 1.510,	F(1,2104) = 2.023,	F(1,2104) = 2.178,
In isolation	3.097	.612	3.094	.601	p = .219	p = .155	p = .140
Openness
Not in isolation	3.440	.629	3.463	.644	F(1,2104) = .000,	F(1,2104) = .900,	F(1,2104) = 5.402,
In isolation	3.498	.610	3.474	.622	p = .996	p = .343	p = .020
Agreeableness
Not in isolation	3.730	.629	3.737	.643	F(1,2104) = 1.738,	F(1,2104) = 31.487,	F(1,2104) = 4.091,
In isolation	3.579	.648	3.544	.650	p = .188	p = .000	p = .043
Conscientiousness
Not in isolation	3.923	.689	3.935	.711	F(1,2104) = 1.524,	F(1,2104) = 74.226,	F(1,2104) = 5.177,
In isolation	3.660	.707	3.620	.707	p = .217	p = .000	p = .023
Anxiety
Not in isolation	3.854	.890	2.797	.907	F(1,2104) = 6.805,	F(1,2104) = 37.463,	F(1,2104) = .644,
In isolation	3.096	.887	3.067	.855	p = .009	p = .000	p = .423
Depression
Not in isolation	2.375	.891	2.308	.890	F(1,2104) = .198,	F(1,2104) = 49.542,	F(1,2104) = 14.751,
In isolation	2.613	.902	2.667	.915	p = .656	p = .000	p = .000
Emotional Volatility
Not in isolation	2.426	.870	2.396	.877	F(1,2104) = .685,	F(1,2104) = 49.762,	F(2,104) = .970,
In isolation	2.696	.844	2.699	.856	p = .408	p = .000	p = .325
Sociability
Not in isolation	2.923	.908	2.912	.921	F(1,2104) = 1.473,	F(1,2104) = .086,	F(1,2104) = .039,
In isolation	2.916	.877	2.896	.842	p = .225	p = .769	p = .843
Assertiveness
Not in isolation	3.161	.786	3.202	.799	F(1,2104) = 5.436,	F(1,204) = .000,	F(1,2104) = .270,
In isolation	3.168	.719	3.194	.726	p = .020	p = .983	p = .603
Energy Level
Not in isolation	3.291	.751	3.343	.776	F(1,2104) = 1.743,	F(2,2204) = 11.315,	F(1,2204) = 4.579,
In isolation	3.205	.779	3.193	.760	p = .187	p = .001	p = .032
Curiosity
Not in isolation	3.542	.738	3.568	.734	F(1,2104) = .484,	F(1,2104) = .020,	F(1,2104) = 6.348,
In isolation	3.582	.690	3.537	.710	p = .487	p = .887	p = .012
Aesthetic Sensitivity
Not in isolation	3.248	.843	3.272	.857	F(1,2104) = .082,	F(1,2104) = 10.532,	F(1,2104) = 1.735,
In isolation	3.396	.796	3.380	.780	p = .775	p = .001	p = .188
Imagination
Not in isolation	3.530	.766	3.550	.778	F(1,2104) = .123,	F(1,2104) = .674,	F(1,2104) = .891,
In isolation	3.515	.774	3.506	.780	p = .725	p = .412	p = .345
Compassion
Not in isolation	3.810	.760	3.819	.762	F(1,2104) = .026,	F(1,2104) = 22.897,	F(1,2104) = .540,
In isolation	3.650	.797	3.636	.808	p = .872	p = .000	p = .463
Respectfulness
Not in isolation	4.036	.735	4.022	.748	F(1,2104) = 4.597,	F(1,2104) = 36.918,	F(1,2104) = 1.533,
In isolation	3.836	.820	3.788	.829	p = .032	p = .000	p = .216
Trust
Not in isolation	3.343	.742	3.368	.760	F(1,2104) = .314,	F(1,2104) = 12.810,	F(1,2104) = 5.423,
In isolation	3.251	.761	3.210	.710	p = .575	p = .000	p = .020
Organization
Not in isolation	3.942	.814	3.939	.826	F(1,2104) = 7.725,	F(1,2104) = 45.271,	F(1,2104) = 6.662,
In isolation	3.721	.848	3.864	.843	p = .005	p = .000	p = .010
Productiveness
Not in isolation	3.870	.787	3.906	.791	F(1,2104) = 1.346,	F(1,2104) = 77.163,	F(1,2104) = 1.552,
In isolation	3.562	.819	3.561	.819	p = .246	p = .000	p = .217
Responsibility
Not in isolation	3.956	.743	3.960	.760	F(1,2104) = 1.361,	F(1,2104) = 61.517,	F(1,2104) = 1.728,
In isolation	3.696	.803	3.661	.776	p = .243	p = .000	p = .189
Responsibilitya ^
Not in isolation	4.056	.734	4.064	.762	F(1,2035) = .761,	F(1,2035) = 72.456,	F(1,2035) = 1.949,
In isolation	3.777	.810	3.740	.780	p = .383	p = .000	p = .163
Dutifulnessa
Not in isolation	3.950	.598	3.906	.587	F(1,1996) = 5.399,	F(1,1996) = 53.849,	F(1,1996) = 1.196,
In isolation	3.728	.623	3.712	.627	p = .020	p = .000	p = .274

N = 2,106.

a Ns vary due to missing data.

^ From Roberts et al. [14].

Neuroticism

The repeated measures ANOVA indicated change in Neuroticism in the overall sample (Table 2): Compared to before the spread of the coronavirus, Neuroticism decreased (d = -.04) during the acute phase of the pandemic in the United States. At the facet level, the Anxiety and Depression facets of Neuroticism decreased, whereas there was no change in Emotional Volatility. The decrease in overall Neuroticism and Anxiety remained significant controlling for the covariates (S1 Table). Age and gender did not moderate change in overall Neuroticism or any of the three facets (S2 and S3 Tables). The results do not support our hypothesis that domain-level Neuroticism and the facet of Anxiety would increase during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. The effect found was opposite of what was expected, and the magnitude of change was small.

Approximately 25% of the sample reported being in quarantine/isolation in the last month. There were baseline differences in Neuroticism (d = .32) by subsequent isolation status and evidence that change in Neuroticism was moderated by isolation status (Table 3). Specifically, the decrease in Neuroticism was only apparent among participants not in isolation (d = .06); there was a slight non-significant increase for those in isolation (d = .01). A stronger cross-over effect was found for trait Depression. Specifically, participants not in isolation decreased (d = .08) in a tendency toward Depression whereas those in isolation increased (d = .06). Isolation did not moderate change in Anxiety or Emotional Volatility.

Conscientiousness

The repeated measures ANOVA indicated no change in Conscientiousness across the two measurements (Table 2; d = .00). Although there was no change in the overall domain of Conscientiousness, two facets did change: The BFI-2 facet of Productiveness increased between pre- and post-test, whereas the NEO facet of Dutifulness decreased. Responsibility measured either with the BFI-2 or Roberts and colleagues’ measure did not change and neither did Organization. Moderation analysis indicated that the change in Dutifulness was stronger among participants younger than 65 years than participants older than 65 years (S2 Table). There was no other moderation by age. There was a modest interaction with gender, such that men increased slightly and women/other genders decreased slightly in Conscientiousness; gender did not moderate change in the facets (S3 Table). Similar to Neuroticism, there were baseline differences in Conscientiousness by isolation status (d = .38) and an interaction, such that participants in isolation decreased slightly in Conscientiousness whereas participants not in isolation did not change, a change driven by somewhat larger changes in the facet of Organization (Table 3). Overall, the results do not support our hypothesis that domain-level Conscientiousness and the facet of Responsibility would increase during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

The Dutifulness scale included an item about the tendency to go to work or school even when not feeling well (“I try to go to work or school even when I’m not feeling well.”). Given the public health messaging to stay at home if sick or even just possible exposure to someone who might have COVID-19, it was possible that the decline in overall Dutifulness was due to change on this item. To address this possibility, in exploratory analyses, we tested for change in this item and the other seven items on the Dutifulness scale (S4 Table). There was, in fact, a large decrease on this item: Participants decreased in their willingness to go to work/school when sick, a decrease of nearly a one-half standard deviation. Further, the median item-total correlation fell from .207 at pretest to .089 at posttest, indicating that its relation with the other markers of Dutifulness changed. There was also evidence of change in three other items on the scale: Perceptions of not being dependable decreased, ignoring silly rules decreased, and following ethical principles increased (together these items show evidence of an increase in Dutifulness, as the first two items listed are reverse scored into the total). There was no change in the other four items (paying debts, following through on commitments, doing jobs carefully, and performing tasks conscientiously).

Extraversion, openness, and agreeableness

The repeated measures ANOVA indicated that Extraversion increased slightly (d = .03; Table 2). At the facet level, this increase was seen for Assertiveness and Energy Level but not Sociability. These changes were not significant when the covariates were included in the model (S1 Table). The increase in Energy Level occurred in participants who were not in isolation (Table 3). There were no other differences in change in the Extraversion domain or facets by age or gender (S2 and S3 Tables) or isolation status (Table 3). There was not a significant change in Openness (d = .02) or Agreeableness (d = .00) or any of their facets (Table 2) and change in these domains and facets was not moderated by age or gender (S2 and S3 Tables). There was, however, some moderation by isolation status (Table 3). Specifically, there was an interaction for Openness, and specifically the facet of Curiosity, such that participants in isolation declined slightly in Openness and Curiosity whereas participants not in isolation increased slightly. A similar pattern emerged for the domain of Agreeableness and its facet of Trust. There were also baseline differences in Agreeableness by isolation status (d = .24).

Discussion

The present research suggests modest acute personality change during the initial stages of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was a small decline in Neuroticism rather than the expected increase. This change in Neuroticism was only apparent among individuals who were not in quarantine/isolation. We likewise did not find the expected increase in Conscientiousness, and there was some evidence that the current social environment may have changed the meaning of an item. In exploratory analyses, there was modest evidence that isolation status moderated trait changes in Conscientiousness, Openness, and Agreeableness, as well as for Neuroticism.

Personality traits tend to be stable over time and resistant to normative life events that are stressful [8]. Of the five traits, there is the most evidence that Neuroticism may be the most reactive to stress. When individuals experience a great amount of distress, either through an extremely aversive event [17-19] or a depressive episode [9], Neuroticism tends to increase. A similar but weaker trend is found for long-term psychological responses to natural disasters, such as after the Christchurch Earthquake [20]. Likewise, interventions to improve mental health decrease Neuroticism [10]. Given the stress and anxiety over the coronavirus, we had expected Neuroticism to increase. Instead, the opposite pattern emerged. This decrease may be due to contrast effects. That is, reminders of the collective stress and anxiety that the world was under were everywhere: During the 10 days of the posttest data collection, there was significant volatility and losses in the stock market [21] (marker of economic anxiety), essential household products such as toilet paper were sold out across the country [22] (marker of consumer anxiety), and national polls indicated that 70% of American adults were concerned or very concerned about the virus in their community [23] (marker of individual anxiety). Feelings of personal stress and anxiety may be attributed less to the self when there is a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety experienced through the whole of society. In such a context, there might be an attenuated tendency to perceive and rate oneself as emotionally distressed as compared to other people. The stress and anxiety participants felt may have been ascribed to the external situation rather than their own personality. It is important to note that participants with pretest data but no posttest data scored higher in Neuroticism. This difference in attrition may have had an effect on the pattern of results. For example, as individuals higher in neuroticism were lost to follow-up, it is possible that this more emotionally vulnerable group responded differently to the pandemic. It is also of note, however, that the overall pattern that we found is consistent with anecdotal reports of decreases in anxiety among individuals who typically suffer from anxiety [24].

We did not find evidence for change in Conscientiousness. We hypothesized that the ubiquitous public health messaging to be more attentive to personal behavior would translate into an overall increase in a trait tendency to be conscientious, particularly the facet of Responsibility. Rather than Responsibility, however, we found only modest evidence for an increase in the facet of Productiveness, which indicated that individuals saw themselves as more efficient and persistent in this crisis. There was, however, a fascinating pattern for Dutifulness. Dutifulness measures the tendency to adhere strictly to ethical principles [15]. This trait tendency decreased between pre- and post-test, a change that primarily occurred in participants younger than 65 (i.e., working-aged adults). This decrease was due entirely to declines on one item about going to work/school when not feeling well. In pre-pandemic times, this item was a fairly good marker of an individual’s willingness to follow through on their commitments. The swift changes in the social landscape, however, may have changed the meaning of this item. Now, rather than a marker of conscientiousness, going to work/school while sick may be a marker of recklessness or antagonism, whereas staying at home and protecting one’s community is conscientious. It is an example of how social context can (rapidly) change the meaning of an item and how it defines the trait it measures.

Approximately one-quarter of our sample reported being in isolation/quarantine within the last month. Our exploratory analysis suggested modest change in personality by isolation status. Of most note, isolation status moderated change in Neuroticism such that the decline in Neuroticism only occurred for those not in quarantine. Further, there was a cross-over interaction for the Depression facet: Individuals not in quarantine declined, whereas those in quarantine increased in a trait tendency toward depressed affect. Increases in depressed affect and other aspects of negative emotionality are common while in quarantine, and the effects may or may not be long lasting [25]. More generally, quarantine might provoke anxiety that is not assuaged by the stress and anxiety felt by the rest of the population. In addition to Neuroticism, isolation also moderated change in Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. In all cases, these traits declined among individuals in isolation, specifically the facets of Curiosity, Trust, and Organization, respectively. The circumstances around isolation may lead to boredom and erode trust. There may also be less pressure to be organized because there is less that needs to get done in a timely manner. It is also of note that there were baseline differences in personality prior to quarantine. That is, individuals who go into quarantine had higher baseline levels of Neuroticism and lower Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Individuals with these traits may be at greater risk of exposure through either who they interact with and/or they work jobs that put them at higher risk of exposure. Individuals higher in Neuroticism may also perceive more threat and go into quarantine to feel safer. There may also be bias associated with these traits in how quarantine/isolation is interpreted (e.g., safer at home may be interpreted as quarantine). We could not tease apart these different possibilities.

FFM personality traits are known to be stable [26] with normative changes across the lifespan [27] and are also known to be relatively resistant to change after normative life events [8]. As such, there would be no expectation that personality traits would change over just six weeks in normal circumstances. The coronavirus pandemic, however, is unprecedented in its disruption of daily life for most of the population. It was thus possible that it would also have an unprecedented effect on personality. As described above, extremely aversive and stressful events are associated with change in personality [17, 19], and the global scale of the current stressful event may have had a widely felt impact. And yet, even with the widespread fears over health consequences of complications of COVID-19, the economic uncertainty, and restrictions on daily life, personality traits have been mostly resistant to change. These findings support theoretical accounts of personality traits that argue for their stability [28], even in the face of acute environmental stressors. It may be the case that other aspects of psychological functioning, including state affect or mental health [29], may be more vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19 (but see [30]).

The present study had several strengths, including a pre-post design that captured trait psychological function just prior and during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. The findings, however, need to be put in context. Although there was evidence of change, for example, the magnitude of change was small; in most cases, the change was less than one-tenth of a standard deviation. As such, overall there is more evidence of stability than substantial change. Still, personality would not be expected to change at all over such a short period of time in normal circumstances. The findings also need to be put in context of some limitations. First, the attrition analysis indicated that there were significant selection effects for who remained in the sample at Time 2 that may have had an effect on the results, particularly for Neuroticism (as discussed above). It is important to note that this study was not originally designed to be longitudinal, so participants in the pretest survey did not know that they would be asked to complete a second survey. With the pandemic, the study was reconceptualized to take advantage of the data collected on psychological functioning just prior to the pandemic. Fortunately, many participants were willing to fill out a second survey, but given that the original study was not meant to be longitudinal, there was no expectation that participants would continue to participate. Second, we tested for trait change in the acute phase of the pandemic. Although the purpose of this measurement was to address whether trait psychological functioning was responsive to an acute health-threatening crisis, it is also possible that the effects of the crisis could take longer to consolidate into substantial changes in personality. Future work will need to address whether there are long-term changes in personality in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Future work also needs to address personality change during the pandemic in other cultural contexts. Third, our measure of quarantine/isolation was broad and did not differentiate between quarantine or isolation and the situation for the participant during quarantine/isolation (e.g., whether the person was alone or with another person). As such, we could not disentangle the exact circumstance of the quarantine/isolation and whether such differences are important for personality change. Finally, as with all non-experimental research, there may be other explanations for the current set of results that we cannot rule out.

Overall, the results suggest more trait psychological resilience than harm during the acute phase of the coronavirus spread and response in the United States. Consistent with the notion that traits are stable and resistant to change, there were few changes in response to the spread of the coronavirus and the measures to control the spread in the United States. The results further suggest that the broader social environment may be modifying both how individuals see themselves (e.g., attributing less anxiety and depressed affect to themselves) and the meaning of specific items to how they measure a trait (e.g., items of Dutifulness). Future work will need to address whether these modest changes are long lasting and/or whether different patterns of change emerge if this crisis is protracted.

Flow chart of participants inclusion/exclusion.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Mean change in personality traits between pretest and posttest controlling for covariates. N = 2,137.

a Ns vary due to missing data. ^ From Roberts et al. [14].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Interaction between time and age on change in personality traits.

N = 2,137. a Ns vary due to missing data. ^ From Roberts et al. [14].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Interaction between time and gender on change in personality traits.

N = 2,137. aNs vary due to missing data. ^ From Roberts et al. [14].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Mean change in dutifulness items between pretest and posttest.

Ns range from 2,105 to 2,109 due to missing data. Items are not given in full because the NEO-PI-3 is protected by copywrite. a Reported in the raw metric but reverse scored into the total Dutifulness score.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-12661

Change in Five-Factor Model Personality Traits During the Acute Phase of the Coronavirus Pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sutin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers. Please, see their comments appended at the bottom of this letter. As you will see, there were several major concerns that should be addressed in a reviewed version of your study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that "Documentation of informed consent was waived because the data were collected and analyzed anonymously from web-based surveys". Please provide further information about the consent procedures for the study - please state what information participants were provided with before participation. Please clarify whether the participants provided online consent to take part in the study. If this was not received please state why not.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I really appreciate this study, it provides information on the topic of stability and changes in personality traits during a stressful situation, specifically during the corona crisis. It is an important contribution to the knowledge of personality stability and change. I recommend the study for publication

I have only two comments:

1) Information that the quarantine / isolation has not been clearly defined and that it may have been interpreted differently should already be provided in the Method. There is a significant difference between quarantine from medical reasons and voluntary isolation. (“In the last month, I have been in quarantine / isolation because of the coronavirus.”)

2) The attrition of the sample between the first and the second measurement is substantial (approx. 45%). Moreover, participants who do not have posttest data differ from those who do have posttest data, not only in demographic variables but also in personality traits - they specifically have a higher level of neuroticism. Thus, the results might be significantly affected by who was willing to participate in the second measurement. I would appreciate it if the authors commented on this fact in more details in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: The authors try to test acute personality changes in response to the coronavirus pandemic using the Big Five Personality Model.

In my opinion, the sample size and the personality model used are the main strengths of the study. However, I think that the study has a series of limitations that make it difficult to respond to the initial objective. Furthermore, there are some aspects that should be reviewed and clarified.

- Some aspects of the procedure are not clear. I think it is necessary to include more information about the participants. Could people from all over the country participate? Was this information collected in the evaluation protocol? I think this variable can affect the results.

- Why include a band age 18-19? The others were 10 years old.

- There are other relevant variables that can influence the results. For example: employment situation, with whom the participants live, if they are sick or not, if they knew someone who had died of coronavirus or had the disease-

- I think that to understand the differences between people who were quarantined and those who were not, it is necessary to know the reasons why these people were quarantined: by their own decision? for being sick? by indications of the government? It is also important to know in what conditions they were in quarentena: alone or with family? Did they work or were they out of work? If the authors have not been able to collect this information, they should include it as an important limitation of the research.

- What information were participants given about the aims of the study when they were encouraged to participate in the second phase of the evaluation? What objective were they told the study had? In what context was the study presented in this phase? This information may also affect the results obtained.

- Were other evaluation instruments included in the second phase? And if so, in what order were this instruments presented, before or after the personality measure?

- I don't understand how some covariates were defined. Why include in the same group female and transgender/other/unknown? Was there any reason to divide the groups based on ethnicity and race? For example, where Asians were included?

- The authors indicate that exploratory analyzes examined whether there were larger changes in adults older than 65, because of the greater risk in this group. But it is also true that the older the fewer changes occur in personality traits. It is true that those over 65 are a more vulnerable group, but it may be that changes occur in other variables than traits (emotional states, worries ...). What do the authors think?

- I agree with the authors when they state that one of the limitations of the study is that it is likely that the effects of the crisis could take longer to consolidate into substantial changes in personality. This is an important limitation, considering that personality traits, by definition, are quite stable over time and, even more so, in adults. The authors also find that there is more stability than change. But the changes could occur in the long term. For this reason, the authors should clarify the significance of the results found.

In this context,the authors should make clear what the usefulness of this study is. What are its main practical or theorical implications? Is it useful at a clinical level, to identify coping strategies ...?

- I believe that the authors should make reference to the fact that there are many other explanations for the results and due to the limitations of the study, these other explanations cannot be ruled out.

In summary, I think the study is, but it is necessary to provide more information on the issues outlined above. Authors need to clarify some aspects of the methodology and that they highlight the limitations of the study.The authors should therefore be cautious in the conclusions of the study and clearly point it out.

It is necessary to clarify aspects of the method and procedure, it is necessary to clearly indicate the limitations, it is essential to better discuss the results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

26 Jun 2020

Response to Reviewers

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We formatted the manuscript to be consistent with PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. We note that you have stated that "Documentation of informed consent was waived because the data were collected and analyzed anonymously from web-based surveys". Please provide further information about the consent procedures for the study - please state what information participants were provided with before participation. Please clarify whether the participants provided online consent to take part in the study. If this was not received please state why not.

We clarify that potential participants were given a description of the survey. Individuals clicked “yes” to indicate that they understand that they were being asked to complete a survey, that they were 18 years or older, and that they agreed to participate. Individuals who clicked yes were directed to the survey; those who clicked no were directed out of the study (pp. 4-5).

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

We formatted the Supporting Information in the manuscript as requested.

Reviewer #1

I really appreciate this study, it provides information on the topic of stability and changes in personality traits during a stressful situation, specifically during the corona crisis. It is an important contribution to the knowledge of personality stability and change. I recommend the study for publication

We thank the Reviewer for the overall positive evaluation of our manuscript.

I have only two comments:

1) Information that the quarantine / isolation has not been clearly defined and that it may have been interpreted differently should already be provided in the Method. There is a significant difference between quarantine from medical reasons and voluntary isolation. (“In the last month, I have been in quarantine / isolation because of the coronavirus.”)

We agree with the Reviewer and indicate this ambiguity in the Method (p. 8) as well as a limitation in the Discussion (pp. 22-23). We also dropped this result from the abstract to focus more on the primary findings.

2) The attrition of the sample between the first and the second measurement is substantial (approx. 45%). Moreover, participants who do not have posttest data differ from those who do have posttest data, not only in demographic variables but also in personality traits - they specifically have a higher level of neuroticism. Thus, the results might be significantly affected by who was willing to participate in the second measurement. I would appreciate it if the authors commented on this fact in more details in the discussion.

We now discuss the potential impact of attrition for the results for Neuroticism (p. 19) and discuss the issue of attrition more thoroughly in the limitations section in the Discussion (p. 22).

Reviewer #2

The authors try to test acute personality changes in response to the coronavirus pandemic using the Big Five Personality Model.

In my opinion, the sample size and the personality model used are the main strengths of the study. However, I think that the study has a series of limitations that make it difficult to respond to the initial objective. Furthermore, there are some aspects that should be reviewed and clarified.

We thank the Reviewer for the positive comments and suggestions for ways to improve the manuscript.

- Some aspects of the procedure are not clear. I think it is necessary to include more information about the participants. Could people from all over the country participate? Was this information collected in the evaluation protocol? I think this variable can affect the results.

Yes, participants were from all 50 states and Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Sample sizes from each state/DC/PR were roughly proportionate to the population of each state/DC/PR. We now report this information in the Method (p. 5 and p. 6).

- Why include a band age 18-19? The others were 10 years old.

The age 18-19 age band was included to have representation of adolescents in the original sample. The range was limited to 18-19 to sample individuals who could consent legally for themselves. We report this information in the Method (p. 5).

- There are other relevant variables that can influence the results. For example: employment situation, with whom the participants live, if they are sick or not, if they knew someone who had died of coronavirus or had the disease-

Personality change was not moderated by employment (any type of employment versus not currently employed) or living situation (living alone versus living with at least one other person). At the time of the posttest assessment (mid-late March), relatively few people in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus (about 100,000) or were known to have died from COVID-19 (about 2,000), so it is unlikely that enough participants in our sample were sick with coronavirus or knew someone who had died from it to be able to make meaningful comparisons. We now note in the limitations that there are other factors that may have contributed to the results (pp. 22-23).

- I think that to understand the differences between people who were quarantined and those who were not, it is necessary to know the reasons why these people were quarantined: by their own decision? for being sick? by indications of the government? It is also important to know in what conditions they were in quarentena: alone or with family? Did they work or were they out of work? If the authors have not been able to collect this information, they should include it as an important limitation of the research.

Unfortunately, we do not have this information. As stated in response to Reviewer 1, point #1 we now mention this missing information in both the Method (p. 8) and as a limitation in the Discussion (pp. 22-23).

- What information were participants given about the aims of the study when they were encouraged to participate in the second phase of the evaluation? What objective were they told the study had? In what context was the study presented in this phase? This information may also affect the results obtained.

The description of the survey was similar to the description of the first survey, except participants were told that they would also be asked questions about current events. Participants were also told that the survey would include some questions that were similar to what they might have been asked before and that it was important to answer the questions, even if they had answered them before. We added this information to the Method (p. 6).

- Were other evaluation instruments included in the second phase? And if so, in what order were this instruments presented, before or after the personality measure?

The second survey also included questionnaires about the coronavirus pandemic. The survey block with personality and the block with the coronavirus questionnaires were randomly counterbalanced across participants. There was no effect of order on the results for personality change. We now include this information in the Method (p. 6).

- I don't understand how some covariates were defined. Why include in the same group female and transgender/other/unknown? Was there any reason to divide the groups based on ethnicity and race? For example, where Asians were included?

A total of 22 participants (1.1%) indicated a gender identity other than male or female or chose not to report. The results were the same if this group was not included in the analysis. We added this information to the Method (p. 8). We included race (African American versus other) and ethnicity (Latinx versus other) as covariates because African Americans and Latinx populations have been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus and were the two largest racial/ethnic populations in our sample. Asians (n=168) were included in the other category (p. 9).

- The authors indicate that exploratory analyzes examined whether there were larger changes in adults older than 65, because of the greater risk in this group. But it is also true that the older the fewer changes occur in personality traits. It is true that those over 65 are a more vulnerable group, but it may be that changes occur in other variables than traits (emotional states, worries …). What do the authors think?

Yes, there is typically less change in personality in middle-age and older adulthood compared to younger populations. In normal circumstances, however, no change in personality would be expected in less than two months for any age group. We hypothesized change because of the extraordinary nature of the pandemic, and specifically for older adults because of the higher risk associated with age. Our focus was on potential change in traits, but, yes, the reviewer is correct that there could be changes in other aspects of psychological functioning, as we now note (p. 21).

- I agree with the authors when they state that one of the limitations of the study is that it is likely that the effects of the crisis could take longer to consolidate into substantial changes in personality. This is an important limitation, considering that personality traits, by definition, are quite stable over time and, even more so, in adults. The authors also find that there is more stability than change. But the changes could occur in the long term. For this reason, the authors should clarify the significance of the results found.

In this context,the authors should make clear what the usefulness of this study is. What are its main practical or theorical implications? Is it useful at a clinical level, to identify coping strategies ...?

There is some indication from the literature that aversive and stressful events are associated with personality change. And, although under normal circumstances there is no expectation that personality would change in a short period of time, the extraordinary nature of the pandemic may affect personality in ways that have not yet been observed. The present study had the opportunity to test this question with a strong design that measured personality just prior to the pandemic and again during a particularly stressful period early in the crisis in the United States. It is possible that there will be long-term changes in personality because of the pandemic, but the current research suggests that the initial stressful period in which routine daily life was substantially disrupted was not associated with large changes in personality. This research thus supports theoretical conceptualizations of FFM traits and adds that traits remain stable through such disruptions. We now address the theoretical implications of the study in greater depth in the Discussion (p. 21).

- I believe that the authors should make reference to the fact that there are many other explanations for the results and due to the limitations of the study, these other explanations cannot be ruled out.

We added this caveat to the limitations in the Discussion (pp. 22-23).

In summary, I think the study is, but it is necessary to provide more information on the issues outlined above. Authors need to clarify some aspects of the methodology and that they highlight the limitations of the study.The authors should therefore be cautious in the conclusions of the study and clearly point it out.

It is necessary to clarify aspects of the method and procedure, it is necessary to clearly indicate the limitations, it is essential to better discuss the results.

We have worked to address the points raised by the Reviewer to better clarify the context of our study and the limitations that are important to consider when evaluating the results.

21 Jul 2020

Change in Five-Factor Model Personality Traits During the Acute Phase of the Coronavirus Pandemic

PONE-D-20-12661R1

Dear Dr. Sutin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I think the authors have included modifications that have improved the article. In my opinion, they have also incorporated information that clarifies some doubts in the methodology and results section. Although the limitations section could be extended, the authors have made an effort to incorporate the reviewers' suggestions. I also think that the main methodological difficulties of the study are included in the limitations section.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

28 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-12661R1

Change in Five-Factor Model Personality Traits During the Acute Phase of the Coronavirus Pandemic

Dear Dr. Sutin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Angel Blanch

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE