Models of Schizotypy - The Importance of Conceptual Clarity
Models of Schizotypy - The Importance of Conceptual Clarity
Models of Schizotypy - The Importance of Conceptual Clarity
S556–S563, 2018
doi:10.1093/schbul/sby012
Advance Access publication February 21, 2018
The observation of psychosis-like traits that resemble symp- remains a lack of consensus on its core dimensions
toms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, both among and the relative import of each. For example, the con-
healthy relatives of psychotic patients and among the ge- sequences for schizophrenia liability of presenting with
neral population, can be traced to the early 20th century.1,2 high values in one but not another schizotypal facet, or
These traits have since been described within various mod- particular combinations of schizotypal traits, remain
els of illness and health (ie, normal/abnormal personality, unclear.
abnormal psychotic continua), each giving rise to concepts The construct of schizotypy is increasingly accepted
such as “schizotypy,” “psychoticism,” and “psychosis-prone- in the clinical sciences as an “influential, comprehen-
ness” that are not necessarily interchangeable, although sive psychological construct in schizophrenia research”7
their subtle distinctions are often overlooked. Historically, (p. S363) and a “useful and unifying construct for un-
there have been 3 major models of schizophrenia-/psycho- derstanding schizophrenia-spectrum psychopathology”8
sis-proneness, one of which is referred to as “taxonic” or (p. S366). Historically, schizotypy has been regarded as a
“quasi-dimensional,”3,4 and 2 models that can be regarded set of personality traits distributed among (at least signif-
as “fully dimensional,”5,6 as distinguished by the relation- icant parts of) the general population, which may repre-
ship that is proposed to exist between psychosis-proneness sent an “endophenotype” on the path to schizophrenia.9,10
and the risk of clinical schizophrenia or other psychotic However, there remains considerable lack of concep-
disorder. In this review, we outline the key assumptions of tual clarity about schizotypy and its relevance in under-
each model and its implications for research of psychosis in standing the causes of psychotic disorder. We believe this
relation to mental illness and health and for the alternative partly reflects failure to acknowledge the historical devel-
models. We integrate historical concept development with opment of the schizotypy construct, particularly, subtle
current findings from various fields of research (eg, person- differences among key theoretical models from which the
ality, neurobiology, and behavioral genetics) and highlight construct emerged. This review highlights the key assump-
the remaining questions each model poses in relation to un- tions of various schizotypy models as they emerged over
derstanding the development of psychotic illness and the dis- time, contributing to current concepts (and potential mis-
tribution of psychotic-like traits in the general population. understandings) about the use of the schizotypy construct.
We review these different models and urge researchers in
Key words: schizotypy/psychosis proneness/schizotypal this field to consider these distinctions in theoretical foun-
personality/schizophrenia/schizotypy models dations when reporting data concerning “schizotypy.”
Meehlian Model
Introduction
Schizotypy is agreed to comprise a set of inherited traits Historically, the notion of latent schizophrenia-like char-
reflected in personality organization,3,4,6 which present acteristics observable both in patients prior to their first
as qualitatively similar to schizophrenia symptoms and florid episode and in patients’ nonschizophrenic relatives
correlate with schizophrenia liability. There is consensus can be traced at least back to the early 20th century.1,2
that schizotypy is a multifaceted concept—though there Since then, a number of terms have been used to denote
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: [email protected]
S556
Models of Schizotypy
the existence of psychotic-like experiences in nonpsy- rather than taxonic.16,17 Furthermore, a single risk-allele
chotic individuals; the term “schizotypy” (a contraction (or “schizogene”) would need to have effects of an order
of “schizophrenic phenotype” introduced by Rado3) of magnitude that makes it highly unlikely not to have
being the most commonly used. Rado’s “schizotypy” been discovered by now. Importantly, in the genetic con-
the case, eg, regarding the Big Five personality model), and delinquency. This is emphasized by Claridge, whose
while the opposite was true in actuality: Eysenck consist- schizotypy model is built on the older conceptualization
ently maintained that personality research should always of Psychoticism. This older concept—although only ever
start with hypotheses and that experiments and statis- (and very tentatively) published in out-of-print-books5—
points for determining abnormality. Thirdly, both sys- This notion is substantiated by the finding that genetic
temic and mental diseases may have multiple causes; in risk scores for schizophrenia are inversely related to
the case of hypertension, a number of environmental psychotic-like experiences and psychometric measures
factors (like smoking, diet, and stress) may contribute of positive schizotypy in healthy individuals34,35 and the
may mean for certain members of the general population interpreted accordingly: The WSS were modeled in light
to score highly on them, their scope (in terms of subdo- of the Meehlian model and include items “transparently
mains assessed) and potential to yield certain results in, concerned with psychopathology”51 (p. 181), while the
eg, factor or latent class analyses. authors of the more recently developed O-LIFE gener-
For example, the content and style of psychometric ally attempted to avoid items of extremely high or low
measures of schizotypy have varied according to the difficulty.49 Thus, while these measures reflect differ-
investigators’ aims and theoretical standing. The earli- ent conceptualizations regarding the dimensionality of
est scales (Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales; WSS) focused schizotypy, the relative likelihood of endorsing partic-
on measurement of vulnerability for specific symptoms ular items on these instruments may affect the interpre-
of schizophrenia, including perceptual aberration,38 tation of scores in clinical or general populations and is
magical ideation,39 as well as physical and social anhe- likely to influence the results of taxometric analyses. The
donia.40 Other psychometric scales tap into hypomanic SPQ46 was originally developed as a self-report screen-
personality traits,41 predisposition to hallucination,42 ing tool for schizotypal personality disorder (which is
delusions,43 paranoia,44 and schizotypal cognitions.45 Yet undoubtedly not identical to schizotypy15). The factor
other scales have been formulated on the basis DSM structure of both WSS and SPQ was, therefore, origi-
conceptualizations of “schizotypal personality” (the nally not aimed at capturing truly disorganized aspects
Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, SPQ)46 and/or of schizotypy: The WSS were developed at a time when
“borderline personality” disorders,47 or by assuming Meehl placed greater emphasis on anhedonia rather than
the existence of fundamental components like the aso- cognitive slippage as the core feature of schizotypy,4,11
cial element of “Psychoticism.”25 In contrast, recent de- and the SPQ scales “odd behavior” and “odd speech”
velopment of psychometric scales tapping the general are conceptually more related to eccentricity than cogni-
schizotypy construct has been based on the empirically tive disorganization. The O-LIFE,27 on the other hand,
observed factor structure of schizotypal traits.27,48–50 The was developed in accordance with Claridge’s model and
origin of these scales bears relevance to their utility for includes a disorganization scale (CogDis) and an impul-
particular research questions. While all pertinent meas- sive nonconformity scale.
ures are designed to capture “schizotypy,” each was de- It becomes apparent that not only do the different con-
veloped under the assumption of a different model and ceptualizations of schizotypy differ regarding their core
with different aims, such that their results should be assumptions of the nature of the link between personality
S560
Models of Schizotypy
and schizophrenia, but that the finer points regarding polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia are inversely
what should be understood as “core” schizotypy dimen- associated with positive dimensions of schizotypy in
sions may vary according to the theoretical model from healthy individuals.34,35
which a scale has been constructed. Additionally, com- The most prominent issue to be resolved concerns
S561
Grant et al
References 21. Eysenck HJ, Barrett P. The nature of schizotypy. Psychol Rep.
1993;73:59–63.
1. Bleuler E. Dementia Praecox: Oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien. 22. Eysenck HJ. The definition and measurement of psychoti-
Leipzig, Germany: Deuticke; 1911. Handbuch der Psychiatrie; cism. Personal Individ Differ. 1992;13:757–785.
S562
Models of Schizotypy
43. Peters ER, Joseph SA, Garety PA. Measurement of delu- schizotypal traits among young males undergoing military
sional ideation in the normal population: introducing the training. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:335–350.
PDI (Peters et al. Delusions Inventory). Schizophr Bull. 54. Howes OD, Kapur S. The dopamine hypothesis of schizo-
1999;25:553–576. phrenia: version III – the final common pathway. Schizophr
S563