Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 16:14:1123046.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1123046. eCollection 2023.

Effort-based decision making in schizotypy and its relationship with amotivation and psychosocial functioning

Ryan Sai Ting Chu  1 , Co Co Ho Yi Tong  1 , Corine Sau Man Wong  2 , Wing Chung Chang  1   3 , Wesley Chor Yin Tang  1 , Charlotte Cheuk Lok Chan  1 , Simon S Y Lui  1 , Lai Ming Hui  1 , Yi Nam Suen  1 , Kit Wa Chan  1   3 , Ho Ming Lee  1 , Eric Yu Hai Chen  1   3
Affiliations

Effort-based decision making in schizotypy and its relationship with amotivation and psychosocial functioning

Ryan Sai Ting Chu et al. Front Psychiatry. .

Abstract

Introduction: Suboptimal effort-based decision-making with reduced willingness to expend effort for high-probability/high-value reward is observed in schizophrenia patients and is related to diminished motivation, but is understudied in schizotypy. This study aimed to examine effort-allocation in schizotypy individuals and its association with amotivation and psychosocial functioning.

Methods: We recruited 40 schizotypy individuals and 40 demographically-matched healthy controls, based on Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B) score (top and bottom 10% SPQ-B scores, respectively), from 2400 young people aged 15-24 years participating a population-based mental health survey in Hong Kong and examined effort-allocation using the Effort Expenditure for Reward Task (EEfRT). Negative / amotivation symptoms and psychosocial functioning were assessed by the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) and the Social Functioning and Occupational Assessment Scale (SOFAS), respectively. Schizotypy individuals were categorized into high-amotivation and low-amotivation groups based on a median-split of BNSS amotivation domain score.

Results: Our results showed no main group effect (in either two or three-group comparison) on effort task performance. Three-group comparison analyses on selected EEfRT performance indices revealed that high-amotivation schizotypy individuals displayed significantly less increase in effortful options from low-value to high-value reward (reward-difference score) and from low-probability/low-value to high-probability/high-value reward (probability/reward-difference score) than low-amotivation individuals and controls. Correlation analyses demonstrated trend-wise significance between BNSS amotivation domain score and several EEfRT performance indices in schizotypy group. Schizotypy individuals with poorer psychosocial functioning tended to exhibit smaller probability/reward-difference score relative to other two groups.

Discussion: Our findings indicate subtle effort-allocation abnormalities in schizotypy individuals with high levels of diminished motivation, and suggest the link between laboratory-based effort-cost measures and real-world functional outcome.

Keywords: Effort-based decision-making; amotivation; effort allocation; psychosocial functioning; schizotypy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage of hard choices selected by schizotypy group and controls as a function of reward magnitude. (A–C) Percentage of hard choices in 12, 50, and 88% probability conditions, respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of hard choices selected by high (HIGH-AMO) and low (LOW-AMO) amotivation schizotypy groups and controls as a function of reward magnitude. (A–C) Percentage of hard choices in 12, 50, and 88% probability conditions, respectively.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rado S. Dynamics and classification of disordered behavior. Am J Psychiatry. (1953) 110:406–16. doi: 10.1176/ajp.110.6.406, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Meehl PE. Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. J Pers Disord. (1990) 4:1–99. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1990.4.1.1 - DOI
    1. Lenzenweger MF. Schizotypy: an organizing framework for schizophrenia research. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. (2006) 15:162–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00428.x, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Claridge G, Beech T. Fully and quasi-dimensional constructions of schizotypy In: Raine A, Lencz T, editors. Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (1995). 192–216.
    1. Kwapil TR, Barrantes-Vidal N. Schizotypy: Looking back and moving forward. Schizophr Bull. (2015) 41:S366–73. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbu186, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources