ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychosocial Stress, Social Support, and the
Escalation of Schizotypal Symptoms
Michael A. Juan, PhD* and Irwin Ford Rosenfarb, PhD*†
Abstract: Although research suggests that psychosocial stress is associated with
an increase in schizotypal symptoms, the type of stressor associated with increased
symptomatology is unclear, and no study has examined whether social support
might mitigate the effects of stress on symptom change. In this study, 131 young
adults completed measures of schizotypal symptoms, major life events, daily has-
sles, and perceptions of social support at baseline, and measures of stress and
symptoms again 4 to 6 weeks later. Results indicated, after controlling for base-
line measures, that for those scoring low on schizotypal measures at baseline,
only low levels of social support were associated with increased symptoms.
For those scoring high on the schizotypal scales at baseline, however, both major
life events and daily hassles were associated with increased symptomatology, but
only when perceptions of social support at baseline were low. The results suggest
that it is important to assess both perceptions of social support and baseline
symptomatology when examining whether major life events and daily stress
are associated with increased psychotic symptoms. Both types of psychosocial
stress are associated with an increase in symptoms, but only for those who are al-
ready showing above average symptoms and only when social support is low.
Key Words: Schizotypal symptoms, life events, daily stressors, social support
(J Nerv Ment Dis 2022;210: 61–67)
he term “schizotypy,” first coined by Meehl (1962), refers to a broad,
T multidimensional range of personality traits that include unusual
perceptual experiences, paranoid thinking, social anhedonia, and odd
or disorganized behavior and speech (Barrantes-Vidal et al., 2015; Kwapil
and Barrantes-Vidal, 2015). Schizotypy is often viewed as a latent person-
ality dimension, and schizotypal symptoms are seen as the phenotypic or
clinical indicators of that dimension (Debbané et al., 2015; Fonseca-
Pedrero et al., 2018; Velikonja et al., 2015). Moreover, although schizotypy
is usually viewed as a stable personality trait, research suggests that
scores on schizotypy scales fluctuate based on environmental stressors.
Kocsis-Bogár et al. (2013), for example, found that the number and
severity of stressful life events were significantly associated with schizotypy
scores, and Cohen et al. (2008) reported, over a 20-year period, that
schizotypal personality scores increased based on the number of adverse
life events experienced.
Research also suggests that individuals who score highly on
schizotypy scales, even if they do not meet criteria for a psychotic dis-
order at the time of assessment, are at increased risk of developing
schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in the future. Both Mason
et al. (2004) and Miller et al. (2002), for example, in prospective studies,
found that the best predictor of developing a psychotic disorder over a 1-
to 3-year period was the presence of schizotypal personality characteris-
tics. In addition, Kwapil et al. (2013) reported that, over a 10-year period,
schizotypy uniquely predicted the development of a schizophrenia
spectrum disorder.
*California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San
Diego; and †Department of Psychiatry, University of California, La Jolla,
California.
Send reprint requests to Irwin Ford Rosenfarb, PhD, California School of Professional
Psychology, Alliant International University, 10455 Pomerado Road, San Diego,
CA 92131. E‐mail: ifrosenfarb@alliant.edu.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 0022-3018/22/21001–0061
DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001416
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Little is known, however, about either the factors that are associ-
ated with increases in schizotypy or the factors that lead to the develop-
ment of a psychotic disorder in individuals who score highly on schizotypy
scales. According to vulnerability-stress models of schizophrenia
(Nuechterlein and Dawson, 1984; Zubin and Spring, 1977), individuals
with a genetic or biological vulnerability to develop schizophrenia
develop symptoms when psychosocial stressors exceed a certain thresh-
old. According to model, stress leads to an activation of the hypothalamic-
pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis, which in turn increases dopamine and
serotonin levels in the brain (Walker et al., 2004). Cognitively, stress
also increases negative cognitive schemas, which may lead to a decrease
in feelings of personal control and an increase in psychotic symptoms
such as being suspicious and paranoia (Mayo et al., 2017).
Two types of psychosocial stressors have been identified in the
literature: major stressors, also known as major life events, and minor
stressors, also known as daily hassles (DeVylder et al., 2013; Tessner
et al., 2011), and both types have been found to be associated with in-
creases in schizotypy and psychotic symptoms. Beards et al. (2013),
for example, in a meta-analytic review, found over a threefold increase
in major life events before psychosis onset, and several studies have
found that daily stressors were predictive of an increase in psychotic
symptoms (DeVylder et al., 2013; Norman and Malla, 1994; Tessner
et al., 2011; Yung et al., 2005). Yet, research in this area has been incon-
sistent. At least two studies (DeVylder et al., 2013; Tessner et al., 2011)
found that major life stressors were not associated with an increase in
psychotic symptoms in individuals at risk for psychosis and Mason
et al. (2004) reported that major life events were not associated with
conversion to psychosis in a high-risk sample.
Research examining the relationship between psychosocial stress
and the escalation of psychotic symptoms may be inconsistent, in part be-
cause few studies have assessed the role that social support might play in
mitigating the effects of stress on the escalation of symptoms. According
to vulnerability-stress models, social support should play a critical role in
buffering the effects of stress on psychotic symptom exacerbation. Social
support might mitigate the effects of stress by reducing HPA activation
and by increasing self-efficacy and decreasing suspiciousness and para-
noia. Much empirical research has also found that social support plays
a critical role in buffering the effects of psychosocial stress on psychiatric
symptom exacerbation. Hultman et al. (1997), for example, found that af-
ter a significant life event, patients with schizophrenia with close social
attachments were significantly less likely to have a relapse episode than
individuals without close social attachments, and Avcıoğlu et al. (2019)
recently reported that siblings of patients with schizophrenia with high
levels of caregiver burden were significantly more likely to score high
on a measure of subjective well-being when their perceptions of social
support were also high.
To our knowledge, however, no study has directly examined how
social support may interact with life stress to reduce the probability that
schizotypal symptoms emerge. The purpose of the present study, there-
fore, was to examine, among young adults, whether major life events
and daily stressors would be associated with the escalation of schizotypal
symptoms over a 4- to 6-week period, and whether perceptions of social
support would mitigate the effects of psychosocial stress on the escalation
of symptoms. We hypothesized that the escalation of both major life
events and daily hassles would be associated with an escalation of
www.jonmd.com 61
Juan and Rosenfarb The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022

schizotypal symptoms. We also hypothesized, however, that high levels
of social support would mitigate the effects of both types of stressors on
the escalation of symptoms.
METHODS
Participants
Participants were recruited through advertisements posted on
Craiglist.com and Backpage.com, through a schizotypal personality
web forum, and via flyers posted in coffee houses. Undergraduate col-
lege students from local community colleges and universities were also
approached in class, and print advertisements were placed in a local weekly
publication. Potential participants were told, “Stress can lead to a number of
unusual experiences. If you are between the ages of 18 to 35 and would like
to participate in a research study examining how stress and certain person-
ality characteristics are related, contact the first author by phone or email to
obtain access to the study.”
Upon contacting the researcher, potential participants were screened
to ensure they were between 18 and 35. Individuals indicating a current di-
agnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform, or bi-
polar disorder were also excluded. A total of 163 individuals completed the
time 1 measures. Of those, 132 (81%) also completed the time 2 measures.
One participant, however, was omitted from the analyses because he en-
dorsed every item across a number of measures, and his data proved to
be an outlier. Participants who completed time 1 measures only (n = 32)
did not differ significantly from those who completed the study on any
demographic variable.
Participants who completed the study ranged in age from 18 to
35 (mean, 23.3; SD, 4.5), and 64.1% of the sample was female (n = 84).
Sixty-five participants (50%) were recruited from local community col-
leges and universities; the remainder were recruited from advertisements.
Table 1 provides a summary of the sample's demographic characteristics
and means, standard deviations, and ranges for the study measures, and
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix for the variables. Forty-three percent
of the sample was Latinx (n = 56), 30% was White (n = 39), 20% were
Asian (n = 27), and 4% were African-American (n = 5). In addition, ap-
proximately 25% had a high school degree (n = 33), 62% had completed
some college (n = 81), and 13% had a graduate school education (n = 17).
None of the demographic variables correlated significantly with the
outcome measures.
Assessment of Schizotypal Symptoms
Two questionnaires have typically been used to assess schizotypy:
the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales and the Schizotypal Personality Ques-
tionnaire (Cohen and Fonseca-Pedrero, 2017; Gross et al., 2014). The
scales have been shown to be highly correlated. Wuthrich and Bates
(2006), for example, found that the Schizotypal Personality Question-
naire correlated 0.70 with the Perceptual Aberration scale and 0.72 with
the Magical Ideation Scale. The latter two scales are components of the
Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales. In this study, we used both the Schizotypal
Personality Questionnaire–Brief (SPQ-B; Raine and Benishay, 1995) and
Perceptual Aberration/Magical Ideation Scales (PER-MAG; Chapman
et al., 1994) to assess schizotypal symptoms. Raine and Benishay (1995)
created the SPQ-B as an attenuated but psychometrically sound version
of the longer Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (Raine, 1991). This
instrument assesses the presence of schizotypal personality disorder by
way of self-report of symptoms as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria. The PER-MAG scales
have been shown, at a 10-year follow-up, to be strong predictors of psycho-
sis in respondents and in their close relatives (Chapman et al., 1994). Be-
cause the SPQ-B and the PER-MAG scales both assess schizotypy and
were highly correlated in prior studies and in this study (Table 2), they were
standardized and combined to create one measure of schizotypal symptoms.
Before standardization, however, square root transformations were conducted
on both variables at time 1 and time 2 to adjust for a moderate positive skew.

TABLE 1. Demographics, Time 1, and Time 2 Measures Assessment of Psychosocial Stress

Mean SD Range n % Hassles Scale (HAS; Kanner et al., 1981) and Life Experiences
Survey (LES; Sarason et al., 1978). The HAS assesses daily stressors
Age, yrs 23.3 4.5 18 to 35 and contains 117 items descriptive of the stressors that may befall a per-
Sex (female) 84 64 son on a daily basis. Items include concerns about one's health, the use
Ethnicity of alcohol or drugs, and feeling prejudice and discrimination from
White 39 30 others. Items are first endorsed by the respondent and then rated on a
Latinx 56 43 3-point Likert scale for severity. The LES is a 57-item, self-report scale
Asian/Pacific Islander 27 20
that asks respondents to endorse specific life events that they have re-
cently experienced. Items include the death of a family member, change
African-American 5 4
of residence, and major personal injury or illness. As with the HAS, the
Other 4 3 subjective impact of these events is then determined using a 7-point
Education Likert scale. A square root transformation was conducted on the HAS
High school 33 25 at time 1 to adjust for a moderate positive skew, and a logarithmic trans-
College 81 62 formation was performed on the HAS at time 2 due to a substantial pos-
Graduate school 17 13 itive skew. LES data were normally distributed at both time points.
SPQ-B T1 7.3 5.4 0 to 22
PER-MAG T1 11.5 9.4 0 to 59 Assessment of Social Support
HAS T1 56.9 38.9 0 to 181 Perceived Social Support Scale (PSS; Procidano and Heller, 1983).
LES T1 −1.7 7.4 −34 to 21 The PSS is divided into two components—perceived social support from
PSS 22.4 5.8 0 to 35 family members and perceived social support from friends. Scores are ag-
SPQ-B T2 7.1 5.6 0 to 22 gregated, with higher totals indicating higher levels of perceived support.
PER-MAG T2 10.5 8.7 0 to 56 Studies of internal consistency for the PSS have yielded Cronbach alpha
HAS T2 49.8 43.2 2 to 280 scores of .84 to .92 (Lyons et al., 1988). PSS scores were reflected and
LES T2 −1.7 6.6 −39 to 17
square roots were obtained to adjust for a moderate negative skew.

HAS indicates Hassles Scale, severity rating (higher numbers indicate greater Procedure
severity); LES, Life Events Scales, severity rating (lower numbers indicate
greater negative impact); T1, time 1; T2, time 2. Those who met the screening criteria were provided access to a
website with the informed consent. Participants then completed the

62 www.jonmd.com © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022
TABLE 2. Correlations Among Study Variables
1 2 3 4
1. SPQ-B 1
2. SPQ-B 2 0.86**
3. PAMI 1 0.63** 0.61**
4. PAMI 2 0.64** 0.63** 0.89**
5. Soc support −0.35** −0.32* −0.20*
6. Hassles 1 0.48** 0.38** 0.34**
7. Hassles 2 0.37** 0.37** 0.32**
8. Life events 1 −0.15 −0.18* −0.27**
9. Life events 2 −0.08 −0.11 −0.19*
N = 131.
Hassles 1 indicates Hassles Scale, time 1; Hassles 2, Hassles Scale, time 2; Life events 1, LES time 1; Life events 2, LES time 2; PAMI 1, Perceptual Aberration/
Magical Ideation Scales time 1; PAMI 2, Perceptual Aberration/Magical Ideation Scales time 2; SPQ-B 1, SPQ-B time 1; SPQ-B 2, SPQ-B time 2; Soc support, PSSS
(administered at time 1).
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
measures online. At baseline, participants completed the SPQ-B, the PER-
MAG, the HAS, the LES, and the PSS. They were told to complete the
HAS and LES while focusing solely on the prior 4-week period.
Four weeks later, participants were sent an email and asked to
again respond to the same measures except the PSS, which was com-
pleted only at time 1. Participants who failed to complete the time 2
measures were sent two follow-up emails asking them to participate
in the study. Instructions at time 2 also asked participants to limit their
responses to the stress measures to the prior 4-week period. Participants
earned either a $5 gift certificate to Amazon.com or class credit for
completing the measures at time 1 and time 2. At completion of time
2 measures, participants were also entered into a $100 lottery.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to determine whether an increase
in psychosocial stress would be associated with an increase in schizotypy
scores. We also hypothesized that if social support was high at baseline,
even if there was an increase in stress, schizotypy scores would not in-
crease significantly. A linear regression analysis was computed. The
dependent variable was the time 2 schizotypy score. Predictor variables
included all the time 1 predictors (schizotypy score, hassles, life events,
and social support), time 2 hassles and life events scores, all two-way
interactions of time 1 schizotypy, social support, time 2 hassles, time
2 life events, and the three-way interactions of time 1 schizotypy  social
support  time 2 hassles, and time 1 schizotypy  social support  time
2 life events. To understand interaction effects, following Tabachnick and
Fidell (2007), high and low groups for each measure were created based
on median splits, and groups were compared using two-tailed t-tests. To
assess for outliers, Cook's and Mahalanobis distances were determined
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Cook's assessment revealed no major out-
liers in the data (Cook's >1.0), whereas Mahalanobis did reveal six out-
liers (χ2 = 22.458, p < 0.001). These were examined and retained in
the analyses because of the expectation that some of those responding
to the study advertisements would endorse high scores on some of
the measures (e.g., schizotypy).
RESULTS
Results indicated that the overall model was significant (F
[13,117] = 48.1, p < 0.0001); the R2 was 0.842. Significant predictors
included time 1 schizotypy (β = 0.942, p < 0.001), time 1 hassles
(β = −0.113, p = 0.02), time 1 life events (β = −0.114, p = 0.02), time
© 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Stress and Schizotypal Symptoms
5 6 7 8
−0.20*
0.34** −0.19*
0.30** −0.16 0.60**
−0.27** 0.26** −0.28** −0.22*
−0.14 0.15 −0.16 −0.22* 0.59**
2 hassles  social support (β = 0.155, p = 0.001), time 2 life events 
social support (β = 0.174, p = 0.003), time 1 schizotypy  time 2 has-
sles (β = 0.123, p = 0.01), time 1 schizotypy  time 2 life events
(β = 0.125, p = 0.02), and time 1 schizotypy  time 2 life events  so-
cial support (β = −0.145, p = 0.02). The complete regression model is
shown in Table 3.
Daily Stressors
To understand the significant time 1 schizotypy  time 2 hassles
interaction, we created high and low groups for each measure based on
median splits. As can be seen in Figure 1, results indicated that for in-
dividuals low in baseline schizotypal symptoms, daily stress did not sig-
nificantly influence time 2 schizotypal symptom scores, (t[62] = 0.06,
p = 0.95). For individuals with high baseline schizotypal symptoms,
however, those with a greater severity of daily stress had significantly
higher time 2 schizotypal scores (mean, 0.90; SD, 0.78) than those with
a lower severity of daily stress (mean, 0.38; SD, 0.70; t[65] = 2.73, p = 0.008).
The next set of analyses examined the time 2 hassles  social
support interaction. These results indicated, as can be seen in Figure 2,
that for those with high levels of social support, daily stress did not sig-
nificantly influence time 2 schizotypal symptom scores, (t[62] = 1.32,
p = 0.19). For individuals with low levels of social support, however,
those with greater daily stress had significantly higher time 2 schizotypal
scores (mean, 0.63; SD, 1.03) than those with a lower levels of daily stress
(mean, −0.08; SD, 0.87; t[65] = 3.00, p = 0.004).
Life Events
To understand the three-way time 1 schizotypy  time 2 life events
 social support interaction, we created high and low groups for each mea-
sure based on median splits. As can be seen in Figure 3, results indicated
that for individuals low in time 1 schizotypal symptoms, there was a
significant main effect for social support. Those with high levels of so-
cial support had lower time 2 schizotypal scores (mean, −0.86; SD,
0.51) than those with low social support (mean, −0.53; SD, 0.64; t
[62] = 2.23, p = 0.02). A different pattern emerged, however, for those
with high time 1 schizotypal symptoms. For those individuals, for those
high in social support, time 2 life events did not significantly affect time
2 schizotypal symptom scores (t[23] = 1.11, p = 0.28). For individuals
with low social support, however, those with more negative life events
at time 2 had significantly higher time 2 schizotypal scores (mean,
www.jonmd.com 63
Juan and Rosenfarb The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022

TABLE 3. Regression Model to Predict Time 2 Schizotypy Scores

Predictor b SE b t p
Intercept −0.049 0.041 −1.17 0.241
Time 1 schizotypy 0.942 0.048 19.74 0.000
Time 1 hassles −0.113 0.051 −2.20 0.029
Time 1 life events −0.114 0.051 −2.21 0.029
Social support 0.026 0.043 0.60 0.548
Time 2 hassles 0.065 0.053 1.23 0.219
Time 2 life events −0.052 0.054 −0.96 0.337
Time 1 schizotypy  time 2 hassles 0.126 0.048 2.62 0.010
Time 1 schizotypy  time 2 life events 0.163 0.070 2.34 0.021
Time 1 schizotypy  social support −0.089 0.049 −1.84 0.068
Time 2 hassles  social support 0.149 0.045 3.32 0.001
Time 2 life events  social support 0.177 0.058 3.05 0.003
Time 1 schizotypy  time 2 hassles  social support 0.018 0.051 −0.34 0.728
Time 1 schizotypy  time 2 life events  social support −0.168 0.072 −2.33 0.021
N = 131. Bolded text indicates significant relationships. schizotypy indicates combined SPQ-B and Perceptual Aberration/Magical Ideation Scales; hassles, Hassles
Scale; life events, LES; Social support, PSSS (administered at time 1).

1.05; SD, 0.84) than those with fewer negative life events at time 2
(mean, 0.47; SD, 0.80; t[40] = 2.33, p = 0.03).
DISCUSSION
The results indicated that for those scoring low on schizotypal
measures at baseline, only low levels of social support were associated
with increased symptoms. For those scoring high on the schizotypal scales
at baseline, however, both major life events and daily hassles were
associated with increased symptomatology, but only when perceptions
of social support at baseline were low. The results thus extend previous
research that found that both major life events (see Beards et al., 2013
for a review) and daily stressors (DeVylder et al., 2013; Norman and
Malla, 1994; Tessner et al., 2011; Yung et al., 2005) are associated with
increases in psychotic symptoms.
The results also suggest that social support might mitigate the
effects of stress on symptom escalation, replicating similar findings
with patients with schizophrenia (Hultman et al., 1997) and siblings
of individuals with schizophrenia (Avcıoğlu et al., 2019). It is unclear,
however, why social support buffered the effects of stress on symptom
exacerbation. Previous research found that social support was associ-
ated with decreased paranoia in a nonclinical sample (Freeman et al.,
2011) and increased problem-focused coping in those at high risk for
developing psychosis (Kang et al., 2018). Support thus might lead to
decreased feelings of suspiciousness and paranoia and may help indi-
viduals cope more effectively with psychosocial stressors.

FIGURE 1. The effects of daily stress on schizotypal symptoms based on baseline schizotypal symptom score.

64 www.jonmd.com © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022 Stress and Schizotypal Symptoms

FIGURE 2. The effects of social support on schizotypal symptoms based on level of daily stress.

The results also indicated that stressors were only associated
with increased symptomatology at time 2 for individuals scoring above
the median on the schizotypal questionnaires at baseline. Thus, stress
seems to exacerbate psychotic symptoms only for individuals with
above average levels of symptomatology. The data give further support
to the view that schizotypy, the personality organization underlying
schizotypal symptoms, is taxonic in nature, and there may be qualitative dif-
ferences between those scoring high and low on schizotypy questionnaires
(see Kwapil and Barrantes-Vidal, 2015 for a further discussion of this issue).
According to this view, the genetic vulnerability to develop schizophre-
nia is present in only a small percentage of the population, and stress
should exacerbate symptoms only for those with the taxon to develop
psychosis. This interpretation, however, should be viewed cautiously
because, in this study, high scorers on the schizotypy scales simply
scored above the median on the scales, and the taxon, or the genetic vulner-
ability to develop psychosis, is usually viewed as being present for only ap-
proximately 10% of the population (Kwapil and Barrantes-Vidal, 2015).
The results also have important treatment implications. The results
suggest that for those scoring high on schizotypy scales, both major life
stressors and minor, daily hassles should be monitored by clinicians to
help prevent increased symptomatology. Attempts to increase social sup-
port may also help decrease symptom escalation. Recent treatments
aimed at improving social skills and family relationships in individuals
at risk for developing psychosis may be important ways to increase social

FIGURE 3. The interaction of severity of major life events and perceived social support on schizotypal symptoms based on baseline schizotypal symptom score.

© 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. www.jonmd.com 65

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Juan and Rosenfarb The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022
support in this vulnerable population (see Lecomte et al., 2019 for
a review).
Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, there are
several dimensions to schizotypy (positive, negative, and disorganized,
for example), and different dimension has been shown to predict differ-
ent outcomes (e.g., Kwapil et al., 2012, 2013). Thus, the results in this
study may have been different had each of the schizotypy dimensions
been examined separately. There is, however, a lack of consensus as to
which features are central to schizotypy, and the number of schizotypy di-
mensions shown in different factor analytic studies has been inconsistent
(Cohen and Fonseca-Pedrero, 2017).
Second, life events were assessed by self-report, and research
suggests that major life events are better assessed through structured in-
terviews (Harkness and Monroe, 2016). Future research should attempt
to replicate these findings by assessing life stress with more objective
interview measures.
Third, the study assessed perceptions of social support rather
than actual support received. Although the expressed emotion literature
suggests that the absence of actual support is associated with the esca-
lation of psychotic symptoms (O'Driscoll et al., 2019), this study did
not assess actual support received, and it is unclear how actual support
may correlate with perceptions of support.
Finally, it is possible that increased symptoms at time 2 influenced
perceptions of daily stress and life events. The results indicated, however,
that stress escalated symptoms only for those scoring above the median
on the schizotypal questionnaires. Thus, the escalation of symptoms
alone did not lead to perceptions of increased stress. Moreover, past re-
search (e.g., Ventura et al., 1989) suggests that independent life events,
outside an individual's personal influence, are associated with psychotic
relapse. Detailed interviews are necessary, however, to disentangle the
complex, causal relationship between increased psychosocial stress and
the escalation of symptoms.
In conclusion, the results indicate that both daily stressors and
major life events are associated with the exacerbation of schizotypal
symptoms. Moreover, perceptions of social support buffer the impact
of psychosocial stressors on the escalation of symptoms. Finally, the
data suggest that psychosocial stress exacerbates symptoms only for in-
dividuals already showing high levels of symptomatology.
DISCLOSURE
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Avcıoğlu MM, Karanci AN, Soygur H (2019) What is related to the well-being of the
siblings of patients with schizophrenia: An evaluation within the Lazarus and
Folkman's transactional stress and coping model. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 65:252–261.
Barrantes-Vidal N, Grant P, Kwapil TR (2015) The role of schizotypy in the study of the
etiology of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Scizophr Bull. 41(suppl 2):S408–S416.
Beards S, Gayer-Anderson C, Borges S, Dewey ME, Fisher HL, Morgan C (2013) Life
events and psychosis: A review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 39:740–747.
Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Kwapil TR, Eckblad M, Zinser MC (1994) Putatively
psychosis-prone subjects 10 years later. J Abnorm Psychol. 103:171–183.
Cohen AS, Fonseca-Pedrero E (2017) Towards a schizotypy core: Convergence and di-
vergence of two empirically-derived self-report measures from a nonclinical sam-
ple. J Exp Psychopathol. 8:265–287.
Cohen P, Chen H, Gordon K, Johnson J, Brook J, Kasen S (2008) Socioeconomic
background and the developmental course of schizotypal and borderline personal-
ity disorder symptoms. Dev Psychopathol. 20:633–650.
Debbané M, Eliez S, Badoud D, Conus P, Flückiger R, Schultze-Lutter F (2015) De-
veloping psychosis and its risk states through the lens of schizotypy. Schizophr
Bull. 41:S396–S407.
66 www.jonmd.com
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
DeVylder JE, Ben-David S, Schobel SA, Kimhy D, Malaspina D, Corcoran CM
(2013) Temporal association of stress sensitivity and symptoms in individuals at
clinical high risk for psychosis. Psychol Med. 43:259–268.
Fonseca-Pedrero E, Ortuño-Sierra J, Lucas-Molina B, Debbané M, Chan RCK, Cicero
DC, Zhang LC, Brenner C, Barkus E, Linscott RJ, Kwapil T, Barrantes-Vidal N,
Cohen A, Raine A, Compton MT, Tone EB, Suhr J, Bobes J, Fumero A, Giakoumaki
S, Tsaousis I, Preti A, Chmielewski M, Laloyaux J, Mechri A, Lahmar MA,
Wuthrich V, Larøi F, Badcock JC, Jablensky A, Barron D, Swami V, Tran US,
Voracek M (2018) Brief assessment of schizotypal traits: A multinational study.
Schizophr Res. 197:182–191.
Freeman D, McManus S, Brugha T, Meltzer H, Jenkins R, Bebbington P (2011) Con-
comitants of paranoia in the general population. Psychol Med. 41:923–936.
Gross GM, Mellin J, Silvia PJ, Barrantes-Vidal N, Kwapil TR (2014) Comparing the
factor structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales and the Schizotypal Personal-
ity Questionnaire. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 5:397–405.
Harkness KL, Monroe SM (2016) The assessment and measurement of adult life stress: Basic
premises, operational principles, and design requirements. J Abnorm Psychol. 125:727–745.
Hultman CM, Wieselgren IM, Öhman A (1997) Relationships between social support, social
coping and life events in the relapse of schizophrenic patients. Scand J Psychol. 38:3–13.
Kang MJ, Bang M, Lee SY, Lee E, Yoo SW, An SK (2018) Coping styles in individ-
uals at ultra-high risk for psychosis: Associations with cognitive appraisals. Psy-
chiatry Res. 264:162–168.
Kanner AD, Coyne JC, Schaefer C, Lazarus RS (1981) Comparison of two modes of
stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J Behav
Med. 4:1–39.
Kocsis-Bogár K, Miklósi M, Forintos DP (2013) Impact of adverse life events on in-
dividuals with low and high schizotypy in a nonpatient sample. J Nerv Ment
Dis. 201:208–215.
Kwapil TR, Barrantes-Vidal N (2015) Schizotypy: Looking back and moving forward.
Schizophr Bull. 41(suppl 2):S366–S373.
Kwapil TR, Brown LH, Silvia PJ, Myin-Germeys I, Barrantes-Vidal N (2012) The ex-
pression of positive and negative schizotypy in daily life: An experience sampling
study. Psychol Med. 42:2555–2566.
Kwapil TR, Gross GM, Silvia PJ, Barrantes-Vidal N (2013) Prediction of psychopa-
thology and functional impairment by positive and negative schizotypy in the
Chapmans' ten-year longitudinal study. J Abnorm Psychol. 122:807–815.
Lecomte T, Potvin S, Samson C, Francoeur A, Hache-Labelle C, Gagné S, Boucher J,
Bouchard M, Mueser KT (2019) Predicting and preventing symptom onset and re-
lapse in schizophrenia—A metareview of current empirical evidence. J Abnorm
Psychol. 128:840–854.
Lyons JS, Perrotta P, Hancher-Kvam S (1988) Perceived social support from family
and friends: Measurement across disparate samples. J Pers Assess. 52:42–47.
Mason O, Startup M, Halpin S, Schall U, Conrad A, Carr V (2004) Risk factors for
transition to first episode psychosis among individuals with “at-risk mental states”.
Schizophr Res. 71:227–237.
Mayo D, Corey S, Kelly LH, Yohannes S, Youngquist AL, Stuart BK, Niendam TA,
Loewy RL (2017) The role of trauma and stressful life events among individuals
at clinical high risk for psychosis: A review. Front Psych. 8:55.
Meehl PE (1962) Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. Am Psychol. 17:827–838.
Miller P, Byrne M, Hodges A, Lawrie SM, Owens DGC, Johnstone EC (2002)
Schizotypal components in people at high risk of developing schizophrenia: Early
findings from the Edinburgh high-risk study. Br J Psychiatry. 180:179–184.
Norman RM, Malla AK (1994) A prospective study of daily stressors and symptom-
atology in schizophrenic patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 29:244–259.
Nuechterlein KH, Dawson ME (1984) A heuristic vulnerability/stress model of
schizophrenic episodes. Schizophr Bull. 10:300–312.
O'Driscoll C, Sener SB, Angmark A, Shaikh M (2019) Caregiving processes and
expressed emotion in psychosis, a cross-cultural, meta-analytic review. Schizophr
Res. 208:8–15.
Procidano ME, Heller K (1983) Measures of perceived social support from friends and
from family: Three validation studies. Am J Community Psychol. 11:1–24.
© 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 210, Number 1, January 2022
Raine A (1991) The SPQ: A scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based
on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophr Bull. 17:555–564.
Raine A, Benishay D (1995) The SPQ-B: A brief screening instrument for schizotypal
personality disorder. J Pers Disord. 9:346–355.
Sarason IG, Johnson JH, Siegel JM (1978) Assessing the impact of life changes: De-
velopment of the Life Experiences Survey. J Consult Clin Psychol. 46:932–946.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics (5th ed). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tessner KD, Mittal V, Walker EF (2011) Longitudinal study of stressful life events and
daily stressors among adolescents at high risk for psychotic disorders. Schizophr
Bull. 37:432–441.
Velikonja T, Fisher HL, Mason O, Johnson S (2015) Childhood trauma and schizotypy:
A systematic literature review. Psychol Med. 45:947–963.
© 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Stress and Schizotypal Symptoms
Ventura J, Nuechterlein KH, Lukoff D, Hardesty JP (1989) A prospective study
of stressful life events and schizophrenic relapse. J Abnorm Psychol. 98:
407–411.
Walker E, Kestler L, Bollini A, Hochman KM (2004) Schizophrenia: Etiology and
course. Annu Rev Psychol. 55:401–430.
Wuthrich VM, Bates TC (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor struc-
ture of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire and Chapman Schizotypy
Scales. J Pers Assess. 87:292–304.
Yung AR, Yuen HP, McGorry PD, Phillips LJ, Kelly D, Dell'Olio M, Francey SM,
Cosgrave EM, Killackey E, Stanford C, Godfrey K, Buckby J (2005) Mapping
the onset of psychosis: The comprehensive assessment of at-risk mental states.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 39:964–971.
Zubin J, Spring B (1977) Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. J Abnorm
Psychol. 86:103–126.
www.jonmd.com 67