Schizotypy, Lifestyle Behaviors, and Health Indicators in a Young Adult Sample

Abstract

Problematic lifestyle behaviors and high rates of physical illness are well documented in people with schizophrenia, contributing to premature mortality. Yet, there is a notable absence of research examining general lifestyle and health issues in participants at risk for psychosis. This form of research may help identify concerns that exist during prodromal periods related to future outcomes. Accordingly, the current study examined lifestyle and health in a nonclinical sample of 530 young adults with varying levels of schizotypy. Increasing symptom severity was associated with greater somatic symptoms and poorer sleep quality across positive, negative, and disorganized domains. Elevated negative and disorganized symptoms were associated with significantly reduced health-related quality of life, while evidence for reduced engagement in health behaviors was largely limited to those with elevated negative schizotypy. No relationships emerged between symptom presentation/severity and body mass index or substance use, although zero-order correlations suggested an association between disorganized schizotypy and nicotine use. The pattern of relationships in the current study was consistent with findings from the ultra-high risk and clinical literature suggesting that lifestyle and health concerns may exist on a continuum with psychosis. Future research should seek to clarify if these patterns are associated with long-term physical or mental health outcomes.

Nutrition, Sleep, and Exercise as Healthy Behaviors in Schizotypy: A Scoping Review

“…Only one study to date has examined all four aspects of nutrition, physical exercise, and sleep as healthy behaviors in schizotypy, while one other study has examined exercise, nutrition, and schizotypy. In a survey study of US university students (N = 530), Dinzeo and Thayasivam [ 55 ] found that increased schizotypy symptoms were associated with poorer sleep quality across positive, negative, and disorganized domains. Specifically, the authors found that individuals scoring high on all three schizotypy domains reported significantly more severe somatic symptoms, poorer psychological health (e.g., reduced engagement with health behaviors), and more sleep difficulties compared to individuals self-reporting as being low across all schizotypy domains.…”

Empathy and Schizotypy: A Network Comparison of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in High and Low Schizotypy Groups

“…This same phenomenon of stronger networks may not hold for item-level networks of one very specific aspect of social functioning (i.e., empathy), where the hysteresis principle of network theory stating that symptoms exacerbate one another may be less applicable. Furthermore, though high schizotypy has been associated with other negative mental health outcomes [ 70 , 71 , 72 ], including in undergraduate populations [ 73 , 74 ], it is possible that the degree of difference in psychological health between the high and low schizotypy groups in this sample was not great enough to be reflected in the network structures as would have been predicted by the hysteresis principle [ 37 ].…”

Examining the impact of schizotypal personality traits on event-related potential (ERP) indexes of sensory gating in a healthy population

“…The sample was split into two groups, high and low schizotypy traits, using predetermined cutoffs (Cohen, Callaway, Najolia, Larsen & Strauss, 2012 ; Dinzeo & Thayasivam, 2021 ) based on scores on the schizotypal personality questionnaire (SPQ, Raine, 1991 ). There were significant differences on the SPQ between low ( M low =41.44, SD low = 9.74) and high ( M high = 69.20, SD high = 10.84) schizotypy groups t (29) = −7.51, p < .001, Hedges’ g = 10.56.…”

“…Two groups were then generated using the SPQ-BR to create low and high schizotypy (STPY) groups. Groups were created by using predetermined cutoffs (Cohen et al, 2012 ; Dinzeo & Thayasivam, 2021 ) where scores falling 1.65 SD above the mean were considered high STPY, while scores falling below the mean were considered low STPY. Any scores that fell within the mid-range were collapsed and added to the high group as only two participants fell in this “intermediate range.” The final groups were n = 16 low STPY and n = 15 high STPY.…”