Cognitive-perceptual, Interpersonal, and Disorganized Features of Schizotypal Personality

VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 Cognitive-Perceptual,Interpersonal, andDisorganized Features ofSchizotypal Personality

191

by Adrian Ralne, ChandraReynolds, Todd Lencz,Angela Scerbo, NellyTrlphon, and Deborah Kim

Abstract

While two factors are currentlythought to underlie individualdifferences in schizotypal person-ality, three factors may best ex-plain schizotypal traits. Thisstudy used confirmatory factoranalysis to assess five competingmodels of schizotypal personalityin the general population: nullmodel, one-factor model, simpletwo-factor model, Kendler two-factor model, and three-factormodel. The computer programLISREL was used to analyzeSchizotypal Personality Question-naire subscale scores that reflectthe nine traits of schizotypalpersonality. The scores were ob-tained from (1) a sample of 822undergraduates and (2) a repli-cation sample of 102 subjectsdrawn from the community. Re-sults indicate replicable supportfor a three-factor model reflect-ing cognitive-perceptual, interper-sonal, and disorganized latentfactors. Low intercorrelations be-tween the first two factors andthe lack of fit by a one-factormodel are partially inconsistentwith recent notions that a singlevulnerability dimension underliesschizotypal personality. It is ar-gued that future investigationsshould assess the correlates ofall three schizotypal factors inclinical and nonclinical samplesin addition to the two moretraditional factors. It is hypothe-sized that three factors of schizo-phrenic symptomatology observedin recent studies may reflect anexaggeration of three analogousfactors found in the generalpopulation.

Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20(1):191-201, 1994.

Schizotypal personality disorder, as

defined by DSM-IH-R (AmericanPsychiatric Association 1987), ismade up of a series of nine signsand symptoms reflecting cognitive,perceptual, social, interpersonal,and behavioral dysfunction. Thedisorder is thought to be genet-ically related to schizophrenia(Kendler et al. 1981; Gunderson etal. 1983; Kety 1983). Self-reportmeasures of psychosis pronenessand schizotypal personality havebeen developed to measure eitherindividual features of schizotypalpersonality in the general popula-tion (Chapman et al. 1976, 1978)or three of the nine features (Clar-idge and Broks 1984; Venables etal. 1990), but no previous scale as-sesses all nine schizotypal features.The Schizotypal Personality Ques-tionnaire (SPQ; Raine 1991) wasdeveloped to meet this need. TheSPQ is based on DSM-IH-R crite-ria for schizotypal personality dis-order and, in addition to a totalscale, it contains a separate sub-scale for each of the nine schizo-typal features. The SPQ has beenvalidated against DSM-IH-R diag-noses of schizotypal personalitydisorder, and 55 percent of sub-jects scoring in the top 10 percentof SPQ scores have been diag-nosed as having such a disorder(Raine 1991).

One important question is howmany distinct components underlieschizotypal personality in the gen-eral population. Several competingmodels can be hypothesized. Aone-factor model could be hypoth-esized on the grounds that onekey latent trait (schizotypal person-

Reprint requests should be sent toDr. A. Raine, Dept. of Psychology,S.G.M. Bldg., University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA90089-1061.

by guest on Novem

ber 25, 2015http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/

192 SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN

ality) underlies all nine features.The prevalent view, however, isthat a simple two-factor model canbest explain schizotypal person-ality. Siever and Gunderson (1983)and Widiger et al. (1986) haveconceptualized some schizotypalfeatures (ideas of reference, magi-cal thinking, unusual perceptualexperiences, odd speech, paranoidideation) as reflecting aspects ofcognitive-perceptual dysfunction,whereas other features (social anx-iety, no close friends, constrictedaffect) are thought to reflect defi-cits in interpersonal functioning.Similarly, DSM-III-R groupsschizotypal features into two fac-tors representing "peculiarities ofideation, appearance, and be-havior," on the one hand, and"deficits in interpersonal related-ness," on the other (American Psy-chiatric Association 1987, p. 340).Several factor analyses of schizo-typal and psychosis-prone person-ality scales have generally un-covered two factors related to"positive" and "negative" schizo-typal features (Allen et al. 1987;Muntaner et al. 1988; Bentall et al.1989; Raine and Allbutt 1989). Notall of the nine DSM-III-R schizo-typal traits are represented inthese analyses, however, and onerecent analysis by Kendler andHewitt (1992) resulted in threefactors.

The only empirical analysis con-ducted to date (to the authors'knowledge) that incorporates allschizotypal features suggests amodification of the simple two-factor model. Kendler et al. (1991)assessed schizotypal features in29 pairs of normal twins with theStructured Interview for Schizotypy(Kendler et al. 1989). An explora-tory factor analysis revealed twofactors, which were labeled aspositive and negative schizotypal

features. While the model wassimilar to the simple two-factormodel, two important differenceswere that (1) paranoid ideationand social anxiety loaded on bothfactors, whereas they have beentraditionally viewed as belongingto cognitive-perceptual and inter-personal factors, respectively, and(2) odd behavior loaded on thenegative rather than the positivefactor (see table 1).

A fourth model suggests thatthree factors underlie individualdifferences in schizotypal person-ality. This model stems from re-cent data suggesting that a two-dimensional (positive and negative)model fails to adequately explainsymptomatology in schizophreniapatients, and that instead threefactors (positive, negative, and dis-organized) provide a better fit(Bilder et al. 1985; Liddle andBarnes 1990; Arndt et al. 1991).Bilder et al. (1985) were one of

the first groups to identify thisthree-factor structure. Followingthis work, Arndt et al. (1991) usedfactor analysis on data from 207schizophrenia patients assessedwith the Scale for the Assessmentof Negative Symptoms (Andreasen1982) and the Scale for the Assess-ment of Positive Symptoms (An-dreasen and Olsen 1982) andfound three factors. The additionalfactor arose from the splitting ofpositive symptoms into two sepa-rate factors defined by (1) delu-sions and hallucinations and (2)thought disorder, bizarre behavior,and alogia; negative symptoms de-fined the third factor. A similarthree-factor structure has also beenreported by Liddle and Barnes(1990). On this basis, a three-factormodel of schizotypal personalitycan be hypothesized as follows: (1)cognitive-perceptual factor (ideas ofreference, magical thinking, un-usual perceptual experiences, para-

Table 1.models

Factor-analytic structures predicted by the four

Ideas ofreference

Magical thinkingUnusual

perceptualexperiences

Paranoidideation

Social anxietyNo close friendsConstricted

affectOdd behaviorOdd speech

One-factor

1

11

1

111

111

Simpletwo-factor

1

11

1

100

011

2

00

0

011

100

Kendlertwo-factor

1

11

1

110

001

2

00

0

111

110

Three-factor

1

11

1

100

000

2

00

0

111

100

3

00

0

000

011

Note.—1 = variables loading on the factor, 0 = zero loading.

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 193

noid ideation), (2) interpersonalfactor (social anxiety, no closefriends, constricted affect, paranoidideation), and (3) disorganization(odd behavior, odd speech). Load-ings for the disorganization factorare predicted on the grounds thatodd behavior is the closest schizo-typal feature to bizarre behavior inschizophrenia, and odd speech isthe closest schizotypal analog toschizophrenic thought disorder.

The main aim of this study isto assess which of five models(null, one-factor, simple two-factor,Kendler two-factor, three-factor)best explains individual differencesin schizotypal personality in thegeneral population as assessed bythe SPQ. Confirmatory factor anal-ysis using the computer programLISREL was employed becausesuch analysis is generally superiorto exploratory factor analysis andis ideal for testing competing mod-els, allowing goodness-of-fit indicesto assess the fit of each model tothe actual data (Bentler and Bonett1980; Cole 1987; Lenzenweger etal. 1989).

Method

Subjects. The first sample con-sisted of 822 (403 male, 384female, 35 sex unknown) under-graduate students enrolled in anintroductory psychology class atthe University of Southern Califor-nia. Students completed the SPQfor course credit. Because thislarge sample has limited variationin age, ability level, and socialclass, attempts were made to repli-cate findings in a second (commu-nity) sample of volunteers, whichconsisted of 102 adults (54 male,48 female) with a mean age of29.9 years (standard deviation [SD]= 11.5, range •= 18-74). Volunteers

were recruited from two sources:(1) passengers waiting for flightsat Los Angeles International Air-port and (2) residents of a largeapartment complex in the San Fer-nando area of Los Angeles. Re-fusal rate was 9 percent. Airportsubjects were randomly selectedfrom all seated adults who ap-peared to be waiting for a flight.Although this sample cannot beconsidered a random sample fromthe general population, it moreclosely approximates the generalpopulation than college under-graduates do.

SPQ. All subjects completed theSPQ (Raine 1991). Full reliabilityand validity data are given inRaine (1991). This 74-item self-report questionnaire takes approx-imately 10 minutes to completeand has been found to have highinternal reliability as indicated byCronbach's alpha (0.91). Con-vergent validity as assessed byPearson correlations between theSPQ and other measures of schizo-typal personality ranges from 0.59to 0.81 (Raine 1991). Correlationsbetween the SPQ and scales meas-uring nonschizotypal forms of ab-normal personality were signifi-cantly lower than correlationsbetween the SPQ and other scalesof schizotypal personality, indicat-ing discriminant validity. Test-retest reliability (Pearson's r) is0.82. Criterion validity for the SPQis indicated by a 0.60 correlation(point-biserial) between SPQ scoresand a clinical diagnosis of DSM-III-R schizotypal personality disor-der and by a 0.68 correlation(Spearman's r) between the SPQand dimensional scores of schizo-typal personality disorder derivedfrom diagnostic interviews. The in-ternal reliabilities of the nine SPQsubscales range from 0.71 to 0.78

(Cronbach's a), with a mean of0.74.

Statistical Procedures, Models,and Goodness-of-Fit Indices.

LISREL. Confirmatory factoranalysis was conducted usingLISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sorbom1989). In confirmatory factor anal-ysis, unlike exploratory factor anal-ysis, a model is constructed a pri-ori that attempts to account forthe covariance matrix. For eachmodel proposed, the number offactors and the loadings of vari-ables on specific factors are spec-ified before analysis; ones andzeros are used to specify freeloadings and zero loadings, respec-tively. Confirmatory factor analysisthen evaluates these models usinggoodness-of-fit indices. In contrast,exploratory factor analysis makesno predictions about the underly-ing factor structure and places noconstraints on the number of fac-tors or the factor loadings. Con-firmatory factor analysis is thoughtto represent a stronger and morerigorous approach to the analysisof the underlying factor structure,particularly since it encouragesa more hypothetico-deductiveapproach.

LISREL analyses were conductedon variance-covariance matricesrather than correlation matrices,which tend to give incorrect stand-ard errors, produce incorrect good-ness-of-fit values, and result inoverfitting Ooresk°g and Sorbom1989). The main aim of maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor anal-ysis is to assess what underlyinglatent factors account for covaria-tion within a group of measures.For each model, LISREL comparesthe estimated covariance matrix tothe actual matrix and assesses thematch using goodness-of-fit indices.

Models. The four models out-

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



lined above are shown in table 1.The one-factor model predicts thatall variables will load on a singlefactor. The simple two-factormodel predicts loadings fromcognitive-perceptual traits on factor1 and loadings from interpersonaltraits on factor 2, without overlapof loadings between the factors.The Kendler two-factor model dif-fers from the simple two-factormodel in that paranoid ideationand social anxiety are predicted toload on both factors, while oddbehavior loads on the interpersonaldeficit factor (factor 2). The three-factor model differs from the two-factor models in that (1) odd be-havior and odd speech are hy-pothesized to break off from thefirst, cognitive-perceptual factor toform a third disorganization factor,and (2) paranoid ideation is hy-pothesized to load on both thefirst, cognitive-perceptual factorand the second, interpersonal fac-tor. This prediction of loading forparanoid ideation is based on re-sults of exploratory factor analysisof the SPQ from Gruzelier et al.(1991), which indicate that para-noid ideation may also belong toboth negative and positive symp-tom groups. Path diagrams il-lustrating these four models aredisplayed in figure 1.

To provide a baseline for com-paring these four models, a fifthmodel, the null model, was alsoexamined. Under this model, eachof the nine schizotypal traits is as-sumed to represent an independ-ent dimension (nine factors in to-tal); that is, there is no underlyingstructure to schizotypal personality.

Goodness-of-fit indices. Sixgoodness-of-fit indices were calcu-lated to assess fit of the models.The first, chi-square, indicates agood fit when it is nonsignificant.A major disadvantage of chi-

Figure 1. Path diagrams illustrating the four models

SPD

Refer Magic Percept Paranoid AnxietyNoFriends

BtuntAffect

OddBehavior

OddSpeech

One Factor Model

Cognitive /Perceptual

Interpersonal)

Refer

7Magic

f fPercept

s\Paranoai

7Anxiety

"—««.

— \

• — .r

NoFncnds

BluntAffect

OddBchcviof

- ^

OddSpeech

Simple Two Factor Model

Kendler Two Factor Model

Refer Magic Percept Paranoid AnxietyNoFnendi

BlumAffect

OddBehavior

OddSpeech

Three Factor ModelSPD = schizotypal personality disorder. Observed variables are represented by squares,latent factors by circles. Single-headed arrows represent factor loadings; double-headed ar-rows represent correlations.

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 195

square is its sensitivity to samplesize: With large samples evenmodels with good fit will be re-jected because chi-square is signifi-cant; conversely, one can obtain abetter fit by simply reducing sam-ple size. Chi-square, therefore, hasbeen regarded as questionable as areliable goodness-of-fit index (GFI)(Bentler and Bonett 1980; Cole1987; Marsh et al. 1988; Joreskogand Sorbom 1989; Bender 1990).Consequently, five other frequentlyused indices were used to assessfit as follows:

1. The GFI is analogous to thesquared multiple correlation inmultiple regression and provides ameasure of the amount of varianceand covariance explained by themodel (Joreskog and Sorbom 1989).Values gTeater than 0.90 indicate agood fit (Cole 1987).

2. The adjusted GFI controls forthe degrees of freedom in themodel and is analogous to the ad-justed squared multiple correlationin multiple regression. Values

greater than 0.80 indicate a goodfit (Cole 1987).

3. The normed fit index (NFI)does not require a statistical basisfor model fitting and has beenclaimed to be independent of sam-ple size. Values greater than 0.90indicate a good fit (Bentler andBonett 1980).

4. The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI;Tucker and Lewis 1973) is a non-normed fit index (Bentler andBonett 1980), which has the impor-tant advantage of reflecting modelfit very well at all sample sizes(Bentler 1990). McDonald andMarsh (1990) recently found thatthe TLI is the only one of 30widely used fit indices that is rela-tively independent of sample size.Values greater than 0.90 indicate agood fit (Bentler and Bonett 1980).

5. The Akaike information crite-rion (AIC; Loehlin 1987) takes intoaccount the number of parametersbeing estimated in determining thegoodness of fit. Values for AICvary from large negative values tozero; values doser to zero indicate

better fitting models. AIC was cal-culated according to the formulaoutlined by Loehlin (1987).

Models are assessed on the ex-tent to which they are associatedwith acceptable goodness-of-fit in-dices. By this convergent approach,the more good fits that are ob-tained with these indices, the moresatisfactory the model is deemedto be.

Results

Comparison of Models. Good-ness-of-fit indices for the five mod-els are presented in table 2. Anasterisk beside a fit index meansthat its value indicates a good fit(> 0.90 for GFI, NFI, TLI; > 0.80for adjusted GFI; closest to 0 forAIC). Overall, the three-factormodel provides the best fit to thedata. The null and one-factor mod-els are rejected because no fit in-dex indicated a fit (x2 and abso-lute value of AIC are high, andother indices are low). The simple

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices associated with the five models in all subjects

Model df GFI Adj. GFI TLI NFI AIC

Undergraduate sample (n = 822)

Null 2309One-factor 833Simple two-factor 419Kendler two-factor 392Three-factor 170

Community sample (n = 102)

Null 412One-factor 133Simple two-factor 66Kendler two-factor 66Three-factor 38

3627262423

3627262423

0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000

0.0000.0000.0000.0000.023

0.520.780.890.911

0.961

0.420.740.870.870.921

0.400.630.821

0.831

0.911

0.280.560.770.770.851

—0.530.760.760.901

_

0.620.850.830.941

—0.640.820.830.931

_

0.680.840.840.911

-1163-425-219-208

-98 1

-215-75-43-45- 3 2 '

Note.—df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-ftt index; Ad], QFI « adjusted goodness-of-flt Index, NFI = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; AIC = Akaike information criterion.

'Value indicates a good fit (> 0.90 for GFI, NFI, TLI; > 0.80 for adjusted GFI; closest to 0 for AIC).

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



two-factor model had an adjustedGFI of 0.82 in the undergraduatesample, but the remaining nine in-dices (four in undergraduate sam-ple, five in community sample)failed to indicate a good fit. There-fore, this model can also be dis-counted. For the Kendler model,only 2 out of 10 fit indices indi-cated a good fit, and values of all10 indices were very close to thosefor the simple two-factor model.This finding indicates that theKendler model offers no improve-ment in fit over the simple two-factor model.

The three-factor model producedthe best fit to the data because all10 indices (5 in each of 2 samples)indicated a good fit. All 10 indiceswere higher for the three-factormodel than for its nearest competi-tors, the simple two-factor modeland the Kendler two-factor model.In addition, chi-square values werethe lowest for the three-factormodel—approximately half thevalue for the nearest competitor—

again indicating a better fit to thedata.

Factor Loadings. LISREL maxi-mum-likelihood Oblimin loadingsderived from the three-factormodel for the undergraduate andcommunity samples are shown intable 3. In the undergraduate sam-ple, the first factor is defined bysubstantial loadings (0.47-0.78)from ideas of reference, magicalthinking, unusual perceptual ex-periences, and paranoid ideation,suggesting a latent trait ofcognitive-perceptual deficits. Thesecond factor is defined by sub-stantial loadings (0.45-0.77) fromsocial anxiety, no close friends,constricted affect, and paranoidideation, suggesting a latent traitof interpersonal deficits. The thirdfactor is defined by high loadings(0.62-0.74) from odd behavior andodd speech, suggesting a latentconstruct of cognitive and be-havioral disorganization. All factorloadings were statistically signifi-

cant (p < 0.0001). This factorstructure was closely replicated inthe community sample, with meanabsolute difference in loadingsbeing 0.09 (minimum = 0.04, max-imum = 0.15).

The interfactor correlation matrixfor the undergraduate and com-munity samples indicated that thepattern of correlations found inthe undergraduate sample wasreplicated in the community sam-ple. Disorganization and cognitive-perceptual deficits were highly cor-related (r = 0.71 in undergraduates[U], r = 0.75 in community [C], p< 0.0001), indicating that whilethey are distinct latent constructs,their variance overlaps by 50 to 56percent. Disorganization also corre-lated with interpersonal deficits (r- 0.44 [U], r = 0.60 [C], p <0.0001), whereas interpersonal defi-cits and perceptual-cognitive defi-cits showed correlations of only0.20 (U) and 0.37 (C) (p < 0.01).In the undergraduate sample, thecorrelations between disorganiza-

Table 3. LISREL maximum-likelihood Oblimin loadings from the three-factor model for theundergraduate sample and community sample

Cognitive-perceptual(factor 1)

U

0.750.620.78

0.470.000.000.000.000.00

c0.830.530.74

0.560.000.000.000.000.00

Interpersonal(factor 2)

U

0.000.000.00

0.450.580.770.760.000.00

c0.000.000.00

0.410.660.890.810.000.00

Disorganization(factor 3)

U

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.620.74

c0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.490.88

Ideas of referenceMagical thinkingUnusual perceptual

experiencesParanoid ideationSocial anxietyNo close friendsConstricted affectOdd behaviorOdd speech

Note.—U = undergraduate, C = community sample. All (actor loadings are statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 197

tion and the other two factors (r «0.71, 0.44) were both significantlyhigher than the 0.20 correlation be-tween perceptual-cognitive and in-terpersonal (2 = 13.8, 5.4; p <0.0001). This finding was replicatedin the community sample (z - 4.1,p < 0.0001; z - 2.1, p < 0.02).

To summarize, while disorgani-zation represents a third factor de-fined by only two loadings, it iscentral to the construct of schizo-typal personality, as indicated byits moderate to large (0.75, 0.71,0.60, 0.44), significant correlationswith the other two factors. In con-trast, the other two factors corre-lated at significantly lower levels(0.20, 0.37) and appear to repre-sent more independent dimensions.

Sex Differences. Because sex dif-ferences have been reported forschizotypal personality in the nor-mal population (Chapman et al.1976; Raine 1992), data for thelargest sample were divided intomale (n = 403) and female (n =384) subsamples and confirmatoryfactor analyses recalculated to as-sess whether support for the three-factor model is specific to malesor females. For both sexes, thethree-factor model again providedthe best fit to the data. Fit indiceswere as follows: GFI, 0.96 females,0.94 males; adjusted GFI, 0.92females, 0.89 males; NFI, 0.93females, 0.90 males; TLI, 0.93females, 0.88 males; AIC, -47females, -68 males. These data in-dicate that the three-factor modelreceives relatively equal support inmales and females. No sex dif-ferences were apparent for factorloadings. All loadings were sub-stantial (0.49-0.89), with the meanabsolute shift in loadings frommales to females being 0.08 (mini-mum - 0.02, maximum = 0.15).

Full details on these data areavailable upon request.

Factor Structure in Nonschizo-typals. Although subjects werenot drawn from clinical samples, itis possible that the observed factorstructure is largely determined byhigh-scoring SPQ subjects, who arelikely to have a clinical diagnosisof schizotypal personality disorder.For example, 55 percent of subjectsscoring in the top 10 percent ofSPQ scores have been found to re-ceive a clinical diagnosis ofschizotypal personality disorder(Raine 1991). This finding yields abase rate of 5.5 percent, a valuesimilar to the 5.8 percent reportedby Baron and Risch (1987). Conse-quently, if the top 10 percent ofSPQ scores were excluded, themajority of schizotypal subjects inthe sample would probably alsobe excluded. To assess the pos-sibility that results are specific tosubjects with high SPQ scores,confirmatory factor analysis wasrerun on subjects scoring in thebottom 90 percent of SPQ scorers,who are less likely to have a clini-cal disorder. Cutoff values were 40for the undergraduate sample and38 for the community sample.

Results were very close to thosereported for the full sample intable 2 (full details are availableupon request). The three-factormodel was again found to providethe closest fit to the data, with 8of the 10 fit indices indicating agood fit. Of 10 fit indices, 2 againindicated a fit for the Kendlertwo-factor model, and only 1 in-dex again indicated a fit for thesimple two-factor model. The nulland one-factor models were againpoor fits to the data, as indicatedby all indices showing a lack offit. These analyses indicate that thethree-factor structure is not specific

to subjects with high scores on theSPQ but exists throughout therange of schizotypal values foundin normal populations.

Discussion

The results support the notion thatthree factors underlie individualdifferences in schizotypal person-ality in the general population.The three-factor model appears tofit the data better than other mod-els in the undergraduate sample,and this finding was replicated inthe community sample, indicatingthat this finding is not specific toyoung, advantaged populations.These findings are also consistentwith an unpublished report ofthree factors underlying the SPQ/derived from an exploratory factoranalysis of an English normal sam-ple with the same loadings pre-dicted by the three-factor model(Gruzelier et al. 1991). Because themodels were not nested, however,statistical comparisons betweencompeting models were not pos-sible. Therefore, it cannot beclaimed that the three-factor modelprovided a significantly better fitthan other models.

One implication of these findingsis that the notion of two factorsunderlying schizotypal personality(Gunderson et al. 1983; Widiger etal. 1986; American Psychiatric As-sociation 1987; Kendler et al. 1991)may require some revision. Thesimple two-factor model and theKendler model did not provide agood fit to the data. This lack offit may have implications forresearchers who, assuming a two-factor model of schizotypal person-ality, have sought differential cor-relates of cognitive-perceptual andinterpersonal features such as sexdifferences, mixed handedness,

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



poor attention, and poor eye track-ing (Siever et al. 1984, 1990; Siever1985; Grove et al. 1991; Kendler etal. 1991; Kim et al. 1992; Raine1992). Such searches will be inac-curate if three factors underlieschizotypal personality. Future re-search on mechanisms underlyingschizotypal personality should seekcorrelates of three latent factors ofschizotypal personality, in additionto the more traditional two latentfactors, to produce more consistentand clear-cut findings.

A second implication of thepresent results is that they providemixed support for notions that asingle vulnerability dimension un-derlies schizotypal personality(Meehl 1962, 1989; Grove et al.1991). Grove et al. (1991) foundthat a variety of putative schizo-typal Indicators (questionnaire andinterview measures of schizotypalpersonality, eye-tracking abnor-malities, and continuous perform-ance task deficits) run in familiesand are intercorrelated, and fur-thermore that these indicators aregenetically correlated. On thisbasis, they argued that a singlecore dimension contributed to vari-ation in these indicators. Such aconclusion would predict thateither a single factor or multiple,highly correlated factors underlieschizotypal personality. The one-factor model of schizotypal person-ality did not fit the data, rulingout the first possibility. Regardingthe second possibility, the three-factor model, which produced theclosest fit to the data, includedtwo factors (cognitive-perceptualand interpersonal deficits) thatshared only 4 to 14 percent oftheir variances (r = 0.20, 037), afinding consistent with the factthat two similar factors found byKendler et al. (1991) were derivedfrom an orthogonal (uncorrelated)

Varimax rotation. Because thesingle-dimension model must pre-dict high correlations between thethree factors, these data are partlyinconsistent with the notion of asingle core vulnerability factor forschizotypal personality. Rather, ifsome latent factors of schizotypalpersonality are largely uncorre-lated, it seems more likely thatthey are determined by multiple,independent processes. A similarconclusion is drawn from symp-toms of schizophrenia by Lenzen-weger et al. (1989), who foundsignificantly stronger support forthe model of Crow (1985), inwhich positive and negative symp-toms reflect independent patholog-ical processes that can coexist inthe same individual, than for twomodels predicting a unidimen-sional structure.

Some limited support for thesingle vulnerability dimension pro-posed by Grove et al. (1991) issuggested, however, by the factthat disorganization correlated atmoderate to high levels withcognitive-perceptual deficits (r -0.71, 0.75) and interpersonal defi-cits (r = 0.44, 0.60). These correla-tions show that some of the fac-tors overlap. If there is a majorvulnerability factor for schizotypalpersonality, therefore, disorganiza-tion may be central to this factor.Paradoxically, there has been noresearch into this factor ofschizotypal personality, though itwould seem important for futurestudies to examine correlates ofthis schizotypal factor in bothclinical and nonclinical samples.

A third implication of these datamay be viewed in the context ofrecent revisions of the structure ofschizophrenic symptomatology.Specifically, the three factors foundto underlie schizotypal personalityin this study may have some bear-

ing on the three factors underlyingschizophrenic symptomatology(Amdt et al. 1991). The cognitive-perceptual schizotypal factor (madeup of unusual perceptual ex-periences, magical thinking, para-noid ideation, and ideas of refer-ence) may be analogous to thepositive symptoms factor (delu-sions and hallucinations) found byAmdt et al. (1991) in schizophre-nia. The interpersonal factor maybe a schizotypal analog to themore negative symptoms factor inschizophrenia patients, althoughsocial anxiety, which loads on thisfactor, has no clear analog in posi-tive or negative schizophrenicsymptoms. The disorganization fac-tor (odd speech and odd behavior)may be a schizotypal analog tothe third schizophrenic factor ofAmdt et al. (1991), which is madeup of thought disorder and bizarrebehavior.

To the extent that these analo-gies are valid, the three factors ofschizotypal personality in the nor-mal population may help explainthree factors of schizophrenicsymptomatology. It may be, forexample, that the three-factorstructure found in schizophreniarepresents an exaggeration of thesame factor structure found in thenormal population. To the extentthat the structure of schizophrenicsymptomatology has its roots inthe same factor structure in thenormal population, research intoindividual differences in schizo-typal personality in nonclinicalpopulations may inform our un-derstanding of the etiology ofschizophrenic symptomatology(Siever 1985; Holzman et al. 1988;Nuechterlein 1990; Kendler et al.1991). For example, a three-stagemodel may exist whereby individ-ual difference factors in schizotypalpersonality in the normal popula-

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 199

tion provide the foundation forsimilar factors of schizotypal per-sonality at the clinical level, whichthen provide the basis for factorsof schizophrenic symptomatology.When mechanisms that underlieindividual differences in oddspeech and odd behavior (the dis-organization factor) in the normalpopulation become mildly dysfunc-tional, they may give rise to oddspeech and odd behavior at theclinical, schizotypal level, while astill greater level of dysfunctionmay give rise to the disorganizedor bizarre behavior observed inschizophrenia. Research into themechanisms underlying individualdifferences in schizotypal factors innormal subjects may thereforeyield valuable insights into keydysfunctional systems involved inschizophrenia. It should be empha-sized that this suggestion is only atentative hypothesis at this stage.Further, it should be noted thatschizotypal personality disordermay differ in important ways fromschizophrenia with respect to inter-relationships between symptomand social factors, rather than rep-resenting merely a milder versionof schizophrenia.

It should be reemphasized thatfindings of this study relate specif-ically to individual differences inschizotypal personality in the com-munity and cannot at this stage begeneralized to schizotypal person-ality disorder in clinical samples.Because confirmatory factor anal-ysis depends on large samplesizes, and because samples ofclinical schizotypal subjects have todate been small, these initial find-ings are necessarily based on alarge sample of nonclinical sub-jects. A further caveat is that noconclusions can be drawn fromthese data regarding whether lia-bility to schizotypal personality

disorder is categorical or dimen-sional. Kendler et al. (1991),among others, have argued for adimensional approach based ondata from normal twins, and thenotion that factors of schizophrenicsymptoms have their origins infactors of schizotypal personalityin the general population wouldbe consistent both with this viewand with the notion of a contin-uous and normal distribution ofgenetic liability to schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (Gottesman andShields 1982). Nevertheless, a cate-gorical model of schizotypal per-sonality is not counterindicated bythe present data. Because good-ness-of-fit indices do not them-selves demonstrate external validityfor a model, it is important thatthe three-factor model be furthertested to assess factorial validity.

Finally, one important conceptualissue concerns whether schizotypalsigns can be measured by self-report methodology. Validity datafor sign subscales were found tobe just as good as those for symp-tom subscales (Raine 1991), indicat-ing that subjects who rated them-selves as having constricted affectwere also rated as having con-stricted affect by a clinical raterblind to self-report scores. Con-struct validity has also been ob-tained for these subscales in tworecent studies (Kim et al. 1992;Raine 1992). Validity data for self-report on signs may be good be-cause schizotypal personality dis-order may involve less loss ofinsight than more serious psychiat-ric disorders. The success in meas-uring schizotypal signs may alsobe due to the wording of somequestions relating to signs, whichasked the subject to report oncomments from others—for exam-ple, "People sometimes find mealoof and distant" for the sign of

constricted affect.In conclusion, three latent

factors—cognitive-perceptual defi-cits, interpersonal deficits, anddisorganization—appear to underlieschizotypal personality in the nor-mal population. This factor struc-ture is replicable and provides theclosest fit to the data relative tonull, one-factor, and two-factormodels. It is hypothesized that asimilar three-factor structure ofschizophrenic symptomatology mayrepresent an exaggeration of asimilar factor structure found inthe normal population.

References

Allen, J.J.; Chapman, L.J.; Chap-man, J.P.; Vuchetich, J.P.; andFrost, L.A. Prediction of psychotic-like symptoms in hypotheticallypsychosis-prone college students.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,96:83-88, 1987.

American Psychiatric Association.DSM-II1-R: Diagnostic and Statisti-cal Manual of Mental Disorders. 3rded., revised. Washington, DC: TheAssociation, 1987.

Andreasen, N.C. Negative symp-toms in schizophrenia: Definitionand validation. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry, 39:784-788, 1982. .^

Andreasen, N.C, and Olsen, S.Negative versus positive schizo-phrenia: Definition and validation.Archives of General Psychiatry,39:789-794, 1982.

Arndt, S.; Alliger, R.J.; and An-dreasen, N.C. The distinction ofpositive and negative •symptoms:The failure of a two-dimensionalmodel. British Journal of Psychiatry,158:317-322, 1991.

Baron, M., and Risch, N. The spec-trum concept of schizophrenia:

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



Evidence for a genetic-environ-mental continuum. Journal of Pedi-atric Research, 21:257-267, 1987.Bentall, R.P.; Claridge, G.S.; andSlade, P.D. The multidimensionalnature of schizotypal traits: A fac-tor analytic study with normalsubjects. British journal of ClinicalPsychology, 28:363-375, 1989.

Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit in-dexes in structural models. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 107:238-246, 1990.Bentler, P.M., and Bonett, D.G.Significance tests and goodness offit in the analysis of covariancestructures. Psychological Bulletin,88:588-606, 1980.

Bilder, R.M.; Mukherjee, S.; Rieder,R.O.; and Pandurangi, A.K. Symp-tomatic and neuropsychologicalcomponents of defect states. Schiz-ophrenia Bulletin, 11:409-419, 1985.

Chapman, L.J.; Chapman, J.P.; andRaulin, M.L. Scales for physicaland social anhedonia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 85:374-382,1976.

Chapman, L.J.; Chapman, J.P.; andRaulin, M.L. Body-image aberra-tions in schizophrenia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 87:399-407,1978.

Claridge, G., and Broks, P.Schizotypy and hemisphere func-tion: I. Theoretical considerationsand the measurement of schizo-typy. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 5:633-648, 1984.

Cole, D.A. Utility of confirmatoryfactor analysis in test validation re-search. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 55:584-594,1987.

Crow, TJ. The two-syndrome con-cept: Origins and current status.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11:471-186,1985.

Gottesman, I.I., and Shields, J.A.Schizophrenia: The Epigenetic Puzzle.New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1982.

Grove, W.M.; Lebow, B.S.; Clem-entz, B.A.; Cerri, A.; Medus, C;and Iacono, W.G. Familial preva-lence and coaggregation of schizo-typy indicators: A multitrait familystudy. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 100:115-121, 1991.

Gruzelier, ].; Burgess, A.; Stygall,J.; Irving, G.; and Raine, A."Hemisphere Imbalance and Syn-dromes of Schizotypy." Unpub-lished manuscript, Department ofPsychiatry, Charing Cross andWestminister Medical School,London, England, 1991.

Gunderson, J.G.; Siever, L.J.; andSpaulding, E. The search for aschizotype. Archives of General Psy-chiatry, 40:15-22, 1983.

Holzman, P.S.; Bivens, L.W.;Bower, G.H.; Campos, J.J.; Carpen-ter, P.; Ekman, P.; Klatsky, R.L.;Suomi, S.J.; Tellegen, A.; andThompson, R.F. Schizophrenia andhuman functioning: The role of thebehavioral sciences. In: Keith, S.J.;Regier, D.A.; and Judd, L.L., eds.A National Plan for SchizophreniaResearch: Report of the National Ad-visory Mental Health Council. Rock-ville, MD: National Institute ofMental Health, 1988. pp. 28-33.

Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D.LISREL 7. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL:SPSS-X Inc., 1989.

Kendler, K.S.; Gruenberg, A.M.;and Strauss, J.S. An independentanalysis of the Copenhagen sampleof the Danish adoption study ofschizophrenia: II. The relationshipbetween schizotypal personalitydisorder and schizophrenia. Ar-chives of General Psychiatry, 38:982-984, 1981.

Kendler, K.S., and Hewitt, J. Thestructure of self-report schizotypyin twins. Journal of Personality Dis-orders, 6:1-17, 1992.

Kendler, K.S.; Lieberman, J.A.; andWalsh, D. The Structured Inter-view for Schizotypy (SIS): A pre-liminary report. Schizophrenia Bul-letin, 15:559-571, 1989.

Kendler, K.S.; Ochs, A.L.; Gorman,A.M.; Hewitt, J.K.; Ross, D.E.; andMirsky, A.F. The structure ofschizotypy: A pilot multitrait twinstudy. Psychiatry Research, 36:19-36,1991.

Kery, S.S. Mental illness in the bi-ological and adoptive relatives ofschizophrenic adoptees: Findingsrelevant to genetic and environ-mental factors in etiology. Ameri-can Journal of Psychiatry, 140:720-727, 1983.

Kim, D.; Raine, A.; Triphon, N.;and Green, M.F. Mixed handed-ness and features of schizotypalpersonality in a nonclinical sample.Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-ease, 180:131-133, 1992.

Lenzenweger, M.F.; Dworkin, R.H.;and Wethington, E. Models ofpositive and negative symptoms inschizophrenia: An empiricalevaluation of latent structures.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,98:62-70, 1989.

Liddle, P.F., and Bames, T.R.E.Syndromes of chronic schizophre-nia. British Journal of Psychiatry,157:558-561, 1990.

Loehlin, J.C. Latent Variable Models:An Introduction to Factor, Path, andStructural Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates, 1987.

Marsh, H.W.; Balla, J.R.; andMcDonald, R.P. Goodness-of-fit inconfirmatory factor analysis: Theeffect of sample size. PsychologicalBulletin, 103:391-410, 1988.

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


VOL. 20, NO. 1, 1994 201

McDonald, R.P., and Marsh, H.W.Choosing a multivariate model:Noncentrality and goodness of fit.Psychological Bulletin, 107:247-255,1990.

Meehl, P.E. Schizotaxia, schizotypy,schizophrenia. American Psycholo-gist, 17:827-838, 1962.

Meehl, P.E. Schizotaxia revisited.Archives of General Psychiatry,46:935-944, 1989.

Muntaner, C; Garcia-Sevilla, L.;Fernandez, A.; and Torrubia, R.Personality dimensions, schizotypaland borderline personality traitsand psychosis proneness. Person-ality and Individual Differences,9:257-268, 1988.

Nuechterlein, K.H. Methodologicalconsiderations in the search for in-dicators of vulnerability to severepsychopathology. In: Rohrbaugh,J.W.; Parasuraman, R.; andJohnson, R., eds. Event-RelatedBrain Potentials: Basic Issues andApplications. Oxford, England: Ox-ford University Press, 1990.pp. 364-373.

Raine, A. The SPQ: A scale for theassessment of schizotypal person-ality based on DSM-III-R criteria.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17:555-564,1991.

Raine, A. Sex differences inschizotypal personality in a non-clinical population, journal of Ab-normal Psychology, 101:361-364,1992.

Raine, A., and Allbutt, J. Factorsof schizoid personality. British

journal of Clinical Psychology,28:31-40, 1989.

Siever, L.J. Biological markers inschizotypal personality disorder.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11:564-575,1985.

Siever, L.J.; Coursey, R.D.; Alter-man, I.S.; Buchsbaum, M.S.; andMurphy, D.L. Impaired smoothpursuit eye movement: Vul-nerability marker for schizotypalpersonality disorder in a normalpopulation. American journal ofPsychiatry, 141:1560-1565, 1984.

Siever, L.J., and Gunderson, J.G.The search for a schizotypal per-sonality: Historical origins and cur-rent status. Comprehensive Psychia-try, 24:199-212, 1983.

Siever, L.J.; Keefe, R.; Bernstein,D.P.; Coccaro, E.F.; Klar, H.M.;Zemishlany, Z.; Peterson, A.E.;Davidson, M.; Mahon, T.; Horvath,T.; and Mohs, R. American journalof Psychiatry, 147:740-745, 1990.

Tucker, L.R., and Lewis, C. Thereliability coefficient for maximumlikelihood factor analysis. Psycho-metrica, 38:1-10, 1973.

Venables, P.H.; Wilkins, S.;Mitchell, D.A.; Raine, A.; andBailes, K. A scale for the measure-ment of schizotypy. Personality andIndividual Differences, 11:481-495,1990.

Widiger, T.A.; Frances, A.; Warner,L.; and Bluhm, C. Diagnostic crite-ria for the borderline and schizo-typal personality disorders, journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 95:43-51,1986.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by agrant from the Biomedical Re-search Division of Research Re-sources, National Institutes ofHealth (BSRG S07RR07012-21). Theauthors are grateful to RichardBaker, Laura Bird, Suzi Brodish,Melanie Kastman, Marc Redmon,and Norine Smiley for assistancein data collection; to Norm Cliffand Laura Baker for invaluablestatistical advice; to Peter Venablesfor impressing on us the impor-tance of confirmatory factor anal-ysis; and to John Gruzelier forpointing us in the direction of athree-factor model.

The Authors

Adrian Raine, D. Phil., is AssociateProfessor, and Chandra Reynolds,M.A., and Todd Lencz, M.A., areResearch Assistants, Department ofPsychology, University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA.Angela Scerbo, Ph.D., is ResearchAssistant, Western Psychiatric In-stitute and Clinic, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. NellyTriphon, B.A., and Deborah Kim,B.A., are Research Assistants, De-partment of Psychology, Universityof Southern California, Los An-geles, CA.

by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


by guest on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Documents

Cognitive-perceptual, Interpersonal, and Disorganized Features of Schizotypal Personality