Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychiatry Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p s yc h r e s

The hierarchic structure in schizotypy and the five-factor model of personality

Tomohisa Asai ⁎, Eriko Sugimori, Naoko Bando, Yoshihiko Tanno
Department of Cognitive and Behavioral Science, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Schizotypal personality traits (schizotypy) might be seen as on a continuum with schizophrenia. However,
Received 18 February 2009 controversy remains with regard to whether this continuum is quasi-dimensional, applying only to people
Received in revised form 7 June 2009 with schizophrenia and schizotypy, or fully dimensional, applying to all people. If the fully dimensional
Accepted 18 July 2009
model is accurate, schizotypy could be described by the same personality theories as are applied to people in
general. We examined the relationship between schizotypy and the five-factor model of personality (FFM),
Keywords:
which is arguably the most established contemporary personality theory. When we assumed a hierarchic
Schizotypy
Schizophrenia
structure of schizotypy factors, we found that the FFM scales could explain schizotypy fairly well regardless
Five-factor model of personality of the questionnaires used, suggesting that schizotypy might represent a variation better understood by
SPQ reference to typical dimensions of personality, though it might still indicate a predisposition to
O-LIFE schizophrenia. This article discusses this conclusion in relation to each of the five personality factors. A
perspective that situates schizophrenia on a continuum with general personality variations implies that this
disorder constitutes a potential risk for everyone and, thus, helps to promote understanding and correct
misunderstandings that contribute to prejudice.
© 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction position to schizophrenia. Although people with schizotypal traits might

Individual differences on measures of schizotypal personality
(schizotypy) have commonly been explored as a means of examining
the nature and structure of schizophrenia symptoms. Research on
schizotypal personality in the general population may provide an
important opportunity to study the biological and cognitive markers
of vulnerability to schizophrenia without the confounding effects of
long-term hospitalization, medication, and severe psychotic symp-
toms (Raine et al., 1995). Relatives of patients with schizophrenia
score significantly higher on measures of schizotypal personality
(Vollema et al., 2002), though the results might depend on the
questionnaire used (e.g., Clementz et al., 1991). This suggests that,
within the spectrum of schizophrenia and related disorders, there is a
range that includes schizotypal traits and that this range is at least
partly genetic (Lenzenweger, 2006).
Patients with schizophrenia are impaired in perceptual as well as
cognitive functions. In the past dozen years, several theoretical models
of schizophrenia symptoms have been proposed, often inspired by
advances in cognitive neuroscience. It was recently suggested that these
models of schizophrenia may also apply to schizotypal personality traits
(Asai et al., 2008; Asai and Tanno, 2007, 2008, 2009). Cyhlarova and
Claridge (2005) indicated that people with schizotypal traits, identified
by questionnaires or semi-structured interviews, might have a predis-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 5454 6259; fax: +81 3 5454 6979.
E-mail address: as@beck.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp (T. Asai).
experience schizophrenic-like experiences, many live normal lives. The
traits of schizophrenia are generally considered to span a continuum.
However, controversy remains regarding whether this continuum is
quasi-dimensional, applying only to those people with schizophrenia
and schizotypy who have schizophrenic genes, or fully dimensional,
applying to all people (Claridge and Davis, 2003). According to the
former perspective, only those with high scores on measures of
schizotypy exhibit schizotypal traits. According to the latter perspective,
all people have schizophrenic genes and thus might exhibit schizotypal
personality traits to some extent; those who have strong schizotypal
traits might develop schizophrenia. Correlations between cognitive
dysfunctions and schizotypal scores in the general population (e.g.,
Asai et al., 2008; Lenzenweger and Maher, 2002: suggesting a negative
correlation between visuo-motor performance and schizotypy scores)
provide support for the fully dimensional model of schizotypy, although
some previous studies support the quasi-dimensional model (e.g.,
Smyrnis et al., 2007: suggesting that highly schizotypal people
performed more poorly than did the total sample in an eye-tracking
task, but no correlation was found between schizotypy scores and
performance). According to these studies, the linear relationship
between schizotypy scores and other measures indicating schizophre-
nic vulnerability might support a fully dimensional model, whereas the
fact that only high scorers performed differently might support a quasi-
dimensional model.
Aside from these experimental studies, questionnaire-based
studies have also contributed to this discussion. For example, the
similarity in the factor structure between schizophrenia and

0165-1781/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.07.018
 T. Asai et al. / Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83
schizotypy has been suggested as indicating a continuum linking the
two (see for the review, Mason et al., 1997). As to schizophrenia, the
classical two-factor model (Positive and Negative symptoms; Crow,
1980) has developed into a three-factor model with the addition of
Disorganized symptoms (Liddle 1987; Liddle and Barnes 1990),
largely as a result of clinical observations. With regard to schizotypy,
it is well known that the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ;
Raine, 1991), which was developed to assess schizotypal personality
disorder as defined in DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association,
1987), has a three-factor structure similar to that for schizophrenia,
with Cognitive (Positive), Interpersonal (Negative), and Disorganiza-
tion (Disorganized Schizotpy) factors (Chen et al., 1997; Dumas et al.,
2000; Fossati et al., 2003; Gruzelier et al., 1995; Gruzelier 1996; Raine
et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2000; Rossi and Daneluzzo, 2002), though
some studies have suggested a four-factor structure in SPQ (e.g.,
Stefanis et al., 2004).
In addition, more recently, Mason et al. (1995) developed a new
schizotypy scale, the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and
Experiences (O-LIFE) based on factor analysis using the existing
questionnaires related to schizotypy (Bentall et al., 1989; Claridge
et al., 1996). O-LIFE has a four-factor structure: Unusual Experiences
corresponding to Positive, Introvertive Anhedonia corresponding to
Negative, Cognitive Disorganization corresponding to Disorganized,
and Impulsive Nonconformity. The last factor, which refers to
antisocial behaviors (disinhibited, violent, self-abusive, and reckless),
emerges only in O-LIFE-measured schizotypy. This result might occur
because the O-LIFE treats schizotypy as a personality quality present
in the general population, because this measure was developed using
standard personality measures (Claridge et al., 1996) including the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EQP: Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975),
whereas the SPQ treats schizotypy as a predisposition to schizo-
phrenia. According to Vollema and Bosch (1995), schizotypy measures
might be divided into two categories: measures for symptoms and
measures for traits. Whereas the SPQ is considered to belong to the
former category (Vollema and Bosch, 1995), the O-LIFE seems to be-
long in the latter. Although these two questionnaires both provide
comprehensive measures of schizotypy, they are based on differing
perspectives on schizotypy. Because both have actually been used to
measure schizotypy and vulnerability markers for schizophrenia, it is
important to consider the differences in their origins. Whereas the SPQ
was developed based on schizophrenic symptoms and criteria for
diagnosis and thereby reflects the perspective of the quasi-dimensional
model (i.e., with or without schizophrenic genes “schizotaxia”; Meehl,
1962, 1990), the O-LIFE incorporated previous personality theories
and thus reflects the perspective of the fully dimensional model (i.e.,
“healthy schizotpy”; McCreery and Claridge, 2002). No study has
examined the relationship between SPQ and O-LIFE. Therefore, in
Study 1, we administered SPQ and O-LIFE simultaneously to examine
their relationship.
If schizotypy is present in all people and is one expression of typical
personality structure (the fully dimensional model), schizotypy might
be described by standard personality theory (e.g., Widiger and Frances,
2002). Some studies have examined the relationship between schizo-
typy and the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM), arguably the most
well-accepted contemporary personality theory, which explains human
personality in terms of five factors: N (Neuroticism), E (Extraversion),
O (Openness to Experiences), A (Agreeableness), and C (Conscientious-
ness) (for a review, see O'Connor, 2002). Although many studies have
examined the relationship between schizotypy and FFM (Ball et al.,
1997; Blais, 1997; Costa and McCrae, 1990; Coolidge et al., 1994;
Duijsens and Diekstra, 1996; Dyce and O'Connor, 1998; Haigler and
Widiger, 2001; Hyer et al., 1994; Ross et al., 2002; Soldz et al., 1993; Tien
et al., 1992; Trull, 1992; Yang et al., 2002; Yeung et al., 1993; West, 1999;
Wiggins and Pincus, 1989), they have either examined only some
aspects of schizotypy or have treated schizotypy not as a multi-factorial
structure but as a unitary phenomenon. Because it is well established
79
that schizotypy can be understood as multi-faceted, as can personality in
general, both should be examined simultaneously. In Study 2, we used
SPQ and O-LIFE to examine the relationship between each factor of
schizotypy and the factors included in FFM.
2. Study 1
We examined the relationship between the two schizotypy
questionnaires (SPQ and O-LIFE) for the first time. Both measure
schizotypy comprehensively, but the two have different assumptions
and different factorial structures. With regard to schizophrenia
symptoms, the two scales seem to have three factors in common:
Positive, Negative, and Disorganized Schizotypy. O-LIFE has an
additional factor: Impulsive Nonconformity (ImNo). However,
Mason et al. (1997) assumed that the Interpersonal factor of SPQ
corresponds to Cognitive Disorganization in O-LIFE, and that Dis-
organization as assessed by SPQ corresponds to Impulsive Noncon-
formity as measured by O-LIFE. We constructed path models and
examined these relationships. We hypothesized that the three factors
in the SPQ and O-LIFE would correspond with the respective factor in
the other, and that the relationships proposed by Mason et al. (1997)
would emerge.
2.1. Method
We administered the SPQ and the O-LIFE to 270 university students (group 0; aged
18–24 years, mean 19.8, standard deviation (S.D.) 1.04; 181 men, 89 women) from an
introductory psychology class. The SPQ (Raine, 1991) is a 74-item true/false self-report
questionnaire based on the DSM-III-R diagnostic criteria for Schizotypal Personality
Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). The SPQ has a three-factor structure
(Cognitive (Cog), Interpersonal (Int), and Disorganization (Dis)). The O-LIFE (Mason et
al., 1995) is a newly developed 104-item true/false self-report questionnaire based on
the results of a massive factor analysis of existing schizotypy-related scales (Bentall et
al., 1989; Claridge et al., 1996). The O-LIFE has a four-factor structure (Unusual
Experiences (UnEx), Introvertive Anhedonia (InAn), Cognitive Disorganization (CoDi),
and Impulsive Nonconformity (ImNo)). Both questionnaires have been translated from
English into Japanese using a standard process including back-translations, and their
validities and reliabilities have been confirmed. We used SPSS 17.0 and Amos 17.0 for
the statistical analysis. We conducted a correlation analysis, a multi regression analysis,
and a path analysis, which can treat many-to-many relationships as one model,
progressively. In path analysis, generally the most fitted model is explored based on the
a priori hypothesis. The constructed models can be evaluated using multiple measures:
the χ2 test, GFI (goodness-of-fit index), AGFI (adjusted GFI), NFI (Normer fit index), CFI
(comparative fit index), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), and AIC
(Akaike information citerion). If the P value resulting from χ2 test is greater than 0.05,
the model is thought to have good fit. If the values of GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI are greater than
0.90 (or 0.95 in a more stringent analysis), the model is thought to have good fit (e.g.,
Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; Hu and Bentler, 1999). If the value of RMSEA is less than 0.10
(or 0.05 in a more stringent analysis), the model is thought to have good fit (e.g.,
Browne and Cudeck, 1993). Generally speaking, when the model has more than two
good scores, including RMSEA and one other, the model is considered to have good fit.
AIC is a comparative measure to compare two models with good fit; a smaller value
indicates good fit.
2.2. Results and discussion
We calculated each factor score for SPQ and O-LIFE for the
following analyses. First, we calculated Pearson's correlation between
each SPQ and each O-LIFE factor (Table 1). Except for one pair (InAn in
O-LIFE and Cog in SPQ), all factors were positively correlated. In
Table 1
Intercorrelations between O-LIFE and SPQ (Group 0).
SPQ
Cog Int Dis
O-LIFE UnEx 0.77⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ 0.51⁎⁎
InAn 0.09 0.65⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎
CoDi 0.45⁎⁎ 0.67⁎⁎ 0.48⁎⁎
ImNo 0.46⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎
⁎⁎ P b 0.01
80 T. Asai et al. / Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83
particular, UnEx in O-LIFE and Cog in SPQ, InAn in O-LIFE and Int in
SPQ, and CoDi in O-LIFE and Int in SPQ were strongly correlated. Total
SPQ was significantly correlated with total O-LIFE (r = 0.81). In the
multiple regression analysis, three factors in SPQ significantly
explained the total O-LIFE (Adj. R2 = 0.657) and four factors in O-
LIFE also significantly explained total SPQ (Adj. R2 = 0.687). Second, to
fully understand the relationship between SPQ and O-LIFE, we
constructed two path models (SPQ explains O-LIFE or O-LIFE explains
SPQ) and examined the fitness of each model. We found that the
former path, in which SPQ explains O-LIFE, resulted in a well-fitted
model ( χ 2 = 14.5, df = 8, P = 0.069, GFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.95,
NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.055 and AIC = 54.5), as shown in
Fig. S1 as Supplemental Material. As to the relationship among O-LIFE
factors, the best fit was achieved by assuming directions from UnEx,
InAn, and CoDi to ImNo. The second path, in which O-LIFE explains
SPQ, also yielded a well-fitted model as shown in Fig. S2 as
Supplemental Material (χ2 = 9.42, df = 7, P = 0.22, GFI = 0.99,
AGFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.036 and AIC = 51.4)
when assuming a direction from Cog to Int, Cog to Dis, and Int to Dis.
These two models are very similar. In depicting the relationship
between SPQ and O-LIFE, the significant paths were almost same in
both models (five paths were common to both models; Fig. 1).
In particular, several pairs, including Cog-UnEx, Int-InAn, and Dis-
CoDi, were related as predicted; in addition, Int-CoDi and Dis-ImNo
were also related, as Mason et al. (1997) assumed. In summary,
though the mixed theory, as we hypothesized, might explain the
relationship between SPQ and O-LIFE (or between three- and four-
factor theories of schizotypy), the path coefficients support the
general assumption (e.g., Cog-UnEx, Int-InAn, and Dis-CoDi), other
than the finding that Int-CoDi showed a stronger correlation than did
Dis-CoDi. Importantly, both models had good fit, indicating that
combinations of each factor in SPQ can explain each factor in O-LIFE,
and vice versa. SPQ and O-LIFE have different theoretical under-
pinnings and therefore might have different factor structures, but
these results indicate that they measure very nearly the same concept
of schizotypy. It is unlikely that the scales would apply to a quasi- or
fully dimensional model of schizotypy, even given their differing
theoretical underpinnings.
As to the relationship among schizotypy factors within each model,
when we assumed a hierarchic structure, the models achieved good fit.
Although the precise nature of this structure is unclear, the following is
suggested from these findings: positive → negative → disorganized
(→Impulsive Nonconformity). We examined this issue further in
Study 2.
3. Study 2
We examined the relationship between the schizotypy and the
FFM of personality to show that schizotypy could be explained by
personality theory in a general population. FFM factors include
Fig. 1. The shared relationships between O-LIFE and SPQ (group 0).
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experiences (O),
Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). Two comprehensive
schizotypy scales were described in Study 1, and FFM scales have also
been developed. We administered four questionnaire surveys and
explored a model shared between schizotypy and FFM. According to
previous studies using the limited available schizotypy question-
naires, West (1999) showed that positive schizotypy is related to N,
and Ross et al. (2002) showed that O is positively correlated with
positive schizotypy but is negatively correlated with negative
schizotypy. Following previous studies, we hypothesized that N
would explain positive factors in schizotypy and O would explain
positive and negative factors in schizotypy in the path models. We
also explored relationships that have not been explored in previous
studies, particularly relationships with disorganized and asocial
(Impulsive Nonconformity) schizotypy.
3.1. Method
We assessed four groups of university students (groups 1–4) using schizotypy and
FFM scales (Table 2). As measures of schizotypy, we used SPQ and O-LIFE as in Study 1
but added the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQB; Raine and Benishay,
1995), a 22-item true/false self-report questionnaire, with items selected from the 74-
item SPQ. SPQB has the same three-factor structure as SPQ (e.g., Compton et al., 2009).
As FFM scales, we used two questionnaires: the Big Five Scale (BFS; Wada, 1996) and
the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae, 1992), which is a
shortened version of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and
McCrae, 1992). Although both have the same five-factor structure (N, A, C, O, and E),
they have different theoretical backgrounds and different items. The NEO-FFI is a well-
known 60-item (sentence) self-report questionnaire with responses based on a five-
point Likert system. The BFS was developed in Japan based on the Adjective Check List
(ACL; Gough and Heilbrun, 1983). It is a 60-item (adjective) self-report questionnaire
with responses based on a seven-point Likert system. The Western-culture based
questionnaires were translated from English into Japanese using a standard process,
including back-translations, and their validities and reliabilities have been confirmed.
Group 1 (N =209, male: 145, female: 64, mean age= 19.1, S.D.= 0.98) completed O-LIFE
and BFS. Group 2 (N = 235, male: 76, female: 159, mean age= 19.8, S.D.= 1.04) completed
SPQ and BFS. Group 3 (N = 120, male: 40, female: 80, mean age =19.6, S.D.= 1.23)
completed SPQB and BFS. Group 4 (N = 140, male: 111, female: 29, mean age = 19.0,
S.D. = 0.86) completed SPQB and NEO-FFI.
3.2. Results and discussion
We calculated each factor score for schizotypy and for FFM for the
following analyses. First, we performed a step-wise multiple regres-
sion analysis to assess the relationship between FFM and schizotypy.
In all groups, FFM significantly explained the total schizotypy score
regardless of the questionnaires used. In particular, N was positively
and E was negatively related to total schizotypy scores in all groups,
and A was negatively and O was positively related to total schizotypy
scores in three groups. These relationships are all comparable to
findings of Ross et al. (2002), who measured total schizotypy by MIS
(Magical Ideation Scale; Eckblad and Chapman, 1983), PAS (Percep-
tual Aberration Scale; Chapman et al., 1978), and ReSoA (Social
Anhedonia Scale Revised; Eckblad et al., 1982). Furthermore, Widiger
et al. (2002) attempted to describe personality disorders with FFM
and predicted that N and O might be positively correlated with
schizotypal personality disorder, whereas E and A might be negatively
related to schizotypal personality disorder. Given that schizotypal
personality disorder could be understood as an extension of
schizotypy, these findings are congruent with Widiger's prediction.
However, C cannot be ignored because it was also related to total
schizotypy in two groups. Therefore, we next examined each factor
level.
To examine the relationships between schizotypy and FFM at each
factor level, we constructed path models (Figs. S3–S6 as Supplemental
Material). When we assumed the hierarchic structure of schizotypy,
as in Study 1, these models achieved good fit, regardless of the
questionnaires used (χ 2 = 11.3, df = 12, P = 0.50, GFI = 0.99,
AGFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, AIC = 77.3 in
group 1, χ2 = 22.8, df = 13, P = 0.044, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.94,
 T. Asai et al. / Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83
Table 2
Multi-regression analysis from FFM to total schizotypy.
Dependent variable (total schizotypy score) R Adj.R2
Group1 O-LIFE 0.65 0.41
Group2 SPQ 0.65 0.42
Group3 SPQB 0.60 0.34
Group4 SPQB 0.53 0.26
⁎ P b 0.05.
⁎⁎ P b 0.01.
NFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.057, AIC = 68.8 in group 2,
χ2 = 18.2, df = 15, P = 0.25, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.89,
CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.042, AIC = 60.2 in group 3, and χ2 = 14.1,
df = 12, P = 0.30, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.99,
RMSEA = 0.036, AIC = 62.1 in group 4). Although their similarities
are not obvious, results indicated that they shared many paths. These
findings are summarized in Fig. 2, which describes the shared paths
among the groups. We assumed that positive corresponds to Cog and
UnEx; negative, to Int and InAn; and disorganized, to Dis and CoDi
schizotypy, as we discussed in Study 1. We omitted ImNo in Fig. 2, and
will return to this factor later.
As to the relationship among FFM factors, the pairs N–E and O–E
were related in all four groups, and A–C, A–E, and C–E were related in
three groups. According to personality theory, if the FFM is a basic
dimension in human personality, it is desirable for each factor of FFM
to be independent of each other (Wada, 1996), and many previous
studies have assumed that each factor of FFM is independent of or
orthogonal to the others (e.g., McCrae and Costa, 1997). Previous
studies, however, have reported indications of relationships among
the five factors (e.g., Wada, 1996), perhaps reflecting complicated
indirect relationships. Though this question awaits future resolution
by FFM researchers, we retained significant relationships among these
factors in our models.
With regard to the relationship between FFM and schizotypy, the
paths N → positive schizotypy (positively) and E → negative schizo-
typy (negatively) were observed in all groups. N → negative (posi-
tively), O → positive (positively), and C → disorganized (negatively)
were observed in three groups. Of these paths, N → positive has
previously been suggested by West (1999); O → positive, by Ross et al.
(2002) and Rawlings and Freeman (1997); and E → negative, by
Rawlings and Freeman (1997). Because a high score for N might
reflect vulnerability to mental distress (Costa and Widiger 2002), N
may explain the positive and negative schizotypy directly and
disorganized schizotypy remotely. A low score for E indicates an
introverted or withdrawn personality, which may extend to anhedo-
Fig. 2. The path model from FFM to schizotypy (shared paths among groups 1–4).
81
N A C O E Independent variable (each big five scores)
0.43⁎⁎ − 0.25⁎⁎ − 0.15⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ − 0.23⁎⁎ BFS
0.42⁎⁎ − 0.13⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ − 0.34⁎⁎ BFS
0.30⁎⁎ − 0.18⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ − 0.42⁎⁎ BFS
0.40⁎⁎ − 0.15⁎ − 0.16⁎ NEO-FFI
nia or autosynnoia in schizotypy. It should be noted that O is related to
positive schizotypy. A high score for O includes a creative personality,
and O has been suggested as the link between schizotypy and
creativity (O'Reilly et al., 2001). This suggests potential strengths
associated with some schizotypal characteristics. In some fields, the
talents of schizophrenic or schizotypal patients, including creativity,
may compensate for schizophrenia in terms of natural selection (for a
review, see Pearlson and Folley, 2007). Because the previous studies
did not examine disorganized schizotypy, this is the first report of the
relationship between C and disorganized schizotypy. A low score for C
means uncontrolled or disordered personality. Rawlings and Freeman
(1997) suggested a relevant finding. They conducted a factor analysis
on the combined data from O-LIFE, NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae,
1992), and the Paranoia/Suspiciousness Scale (PSQ; Rawlings and
Freeman, 1997); in terms of O-LIFE factors, they found that the pairs
UnEx-O, InAn-E, CoDi-N, and ImNo-A or -C were related. Though these
relationships were also observed in our results (see Fig. S3 as
Supplemental Material), the pair CoDi-C was also identified as related
here. The relationship between C and schizotypy needs further
research, but it appears that C might be related to disorganized
schizotypy or Impulsive Nonconformity. When we focused on a three-
factor model of schizotypy, it seems that A was not related to any
schizotypic factor (Fig. 2). A low score for A indicates an anharmonic
personality. ImNo in O-LIFE, however, might be related to A (Fig. S3 as
Supplemental Material; see also Rawlings and Freeman, 1997).
Although we administered O-LIFE to only one group, it is possible
that these concepts are similar.
As to the hierarchic structure of schizotypy, when we assumed the
direct or indirect directions of positive → negative → disorganized
(→ImNo), the models gained good fit as in Study 1, although some
relationships were not significant. According to Fig. 2, positive and
negative factors might be foundational, and they might cause
Disorganized schizotypy (and Impulsive Nonconformity; see Figs. S1
and S3 as Supplemental Material). Classically, these two basic
symptoms have been understood as major schizophrenic symptoms,
and the third (or the fourth, only in schizotypy) factor has been added
later. Furthermore, researchers have conducted cluster analyses of
general population responses to schizotypy scales and have reported
that clusters related to positive or negative schizotypy were often
observed (e.g., Suhr and Spitznagel, 2001a; Williams, 1994, 1995).
However, the pure cluster of disorganized schizotypy has not
emerged, even when O-LIFE or SPQ was used (Goulding, 2004;
Loughland and Williams, 1997; Suhr and Spitznagel, 2001a,b). This
suggests that a disorganized factor may be accompanied by positive
and negative factors, as indicated in Fig. 2. This issue should be
examined further as one important to an understanding of schizo-
phrenic or schizotypic personality.
4. General discussion
The present study showed that the relationship between SPQ and
O-LIFE (Study 1), the only two comprehensive schizotypy scales
available, and that the schizotypic qualities that these scales measure,
could be explained by the FFM of personality (Study 2). Given that
SPQ could explain O-LIFE and vice versa, it is suggested that the two
82 T. Asai et al. / Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83
scales reflect virtually the same concept of schizotypy. According to
Fig. 1, Int and Dis in SPQ might be shared with InAn, CoDi, and ImNo in
O-LIFE. This may reflect the fact that items related to Social Anxiety
are part of Int in SPQ but are included in CoDi in O-LIFE. The third
(Disorganized or Cognitive Disorganized) and fourth factors (Impul-
sive Nonconformity) of schizotypy are controversial (e.g., Venables
and Rector, 2000) and should be examined by further research.
If schizotypy belongs to the range of personality differences
(fully dimensional model), rather than simply indicating a predis-
position to schizophrenia (quasi-dimensional model), schizotypy
should be explained by general personality theory, for example by
FFM, the best established of such models. Our results suggest a linear
relationship between FFM and schizotypy. That is, as a specific factor
in FFM (N or E) gets stronger, schizotypal traits also tend to increase,
indicating a continuum between the normal personality dimension
and schizotypal traits and congruence with a fully dimensional model
rather than with a quasi-dimensional model. If qualitative differences
in schizotypal traits were present in our sample, FFM might not
predict schizotypy linearly in a model. Even so, it cannot be denied
that a schizotypal personality might be associated with a predisposi-
tion to schizophrenia. However, normal elements of personality
that may be shared by everyone could be emphasized in schizotypy.
When we assumed a hierarchic structure for schizotypy, as was
suggested by Study 1, FFM could explain schizotypy well, regardless of
the schizotypy and FFM questionnaires used. This suggests that
schizotypy can be described as a variation in personality. For example,
it has been suggested that O-LIFE can be regarded as a general
personality scale (Rawlings and Freeman, 1997). Though Study 1
showed SPQ and O-LIFE measure almost the same concept of
schizotypy, O-LIFE, which derives from general personality theory,
might be closer to FFM than is SPQ (see Figs. S3 and S4 as
Supplemental Material for the fitness values of both scales).
Generally, the idea of a continuum in disorders has prevailed. Not
only mental disorders, but some other disorders such as high blood
pressure or diabetes mellitus, could also be assumed to lie on a
continuum were it not for diagnostic practices that require doctors to
classify them categorically (Rose and Barker, 1978). Though schizo-
typy might reflect a vulnerability to mental distress, it may also have
advantages, including creativity (Pearlson, and Folley, 2007). The fully
dimensional model that views schizotypy as lying on a continuum
that includes general personality structures might help us understand
its pathology and, furthermore, help in promoting understanding and
correcting misunderstandings that contribute to prejudice.
This study had some methodological limitations and may have
neglected another potential aspect in the dimensionality of schizo-
typy. Our subjects were all university students enrolled in introduc-
tory psychology classes. Our results might be limited by the ages of
the students. In addition, psychology classes might attract a specific
type of person, although our samples did not appear to differ from
previous normative data used in studies of schizotypy and FFM (e.g.,
Asai et al., 2008; Asai and Tanno, 2009; Saito et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, studies in larger communities would also be important
to assess dimensionality. With regard to the dimensionality of
schizotypy, the variability might be considerable. Though the scores
of each schizotypy scales used in Studies 1 and 2 were not distributed
normally (Kolmogorov–Smirnov's test: Ps b 0.05 in O-LIFE, SPQ, and
SPQB), this research did not reveal any quantitative boundaries
seemingly (Fig. 3), suggesting a fully dimensional model. Some
previous studies have conducted taxometric analyses, which can
reveal quantitative boundaries in distribution, and those have yielded
mixed results. For example, Rawlings et al. (2008) recently re-
evaluated previous taxonic conclusions about the latent structure
of schizotypy. In addition to these analyses, an examination of the
continuum between personality dimensions and schizotypy, in
the focus of the present study, would help to clarify schizotypal
dimensionality.
Fig. 3. The relative frequency distributions of each total schizotypy scores (combined
among groups 0–4).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.07.018.
References
American Psychiatric Association, 1987. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders, 3rd revised ed. Author, Washington, DC.
Asai, T., Tanno, Y., 2007. The relationship between the sense of self-agency and
schizotypal personality traits. Journal of Motor Behavior 39, 162–168.
Asai, T., Tanno, Y., 2008. Highly schizotypal students have a weaker sense of self-agency.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 62, 115–119.
Asai, T., Tanno, Y., 2009. Schizotypy and handedness in Japanese participants; revisited.
Laterality 14, 86–94.
Asai, T., Sugimori, E., Tanno, Y., 2008. Schizotypal personality traits and prediction of
one's own movements in motor control: what causes an abnormal sense of agency?
Consciousness and Cognition 17, 1131–1142.
Ball, S.A., Tennen, H., Poling, J.C., Kranzler, H.R., Rounsaville, B.J., 1997. Personality,
temperament, and character dimensions and the DSM-IV personality disorders in
substance abusers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106, 545–553.
Bentall, R.P., Claridge, G.S., Slade, P.D., 1989. The dimensional nature of schizotypal
traits: a factor analytic study with normal subjects. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology 28, 363–375.
Bentler, P.M., Bonnet, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246.
Blais, M., 1997. Clinical ratings of the five-factor model of personality and the DSM-IV
personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 185, 388–393.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen,
K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Beverley Hills,
CA, pp. 132–162.
Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., Raulin, M.L., 1978. Body-image aberration in schizo-
phrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87, 399–407.
Chen, W.J., Chuhsing, K.H., Chaucer, C.H. Lin, 1997. Schizotypy in community samples:
the three-factor structure and correlation with sustained attention. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology 106 (4), 649–654.
Claridge, G., Davis, C., 2003. Personality and psychological disorders. Arnold, London.
Cyhlarova, E., Claridge, G., 2005. Development of a version of the Schizotypy Traits
Questionnaire (STA) for screening children. Schizophrenia Research 80, 253–261.
Claridge, G., McCreery, C., Mason, O., Bentall, R., Boyle, G., Slade, P., Popplewell, D., 1996.
The factor structure of ‘schizotypal’ traits: a large replication study. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology 35, 103–115.
Clementz, B.A., Grove, W.M., Katsanis, J., Iacono, W.G., 1991. Psychometric detection of
schizotypy: perceptual aberration and physical anhedonia in relatives of schizo-
phrenics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100, 607–612.
Compton, M.T., Goulding, S.M., Bakeman, R., McClure-Tone, E.B., 2009. An examination
of the factorial structure of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B)
among undergraduate students. Schizophrenia Research 115 (2–3), 286–289.
Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1990. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality. Journal of Personality Disorders 4, 362–371.
Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assess-
ment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Costa Jr., P.T., Widiger, T.A., 2002. Introduction: Personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality. In: Costa Jr., P.A., Widiger, T.A. (Eds.), Personality disorders
and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.) (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC,
American psychological Association.
 T. Asai et al. / Psychiatry Research 185 (2011) 78–83
Coolidge, F.L., Becker, L.A., Dirito, D.C., Durham, R.L., Kinlaw, M.M., Philbrick, P.B., 1994.
On the relationship of the five-factor personality model to personality disorders:
four reservations. Psychological Reports 75, 11–21.
Crow, T.J., 1980. Molecular pathology of schizophrenia: more than one disease process?
British Medical Journal 280, 66–68.
Dumas, P., Bouafia, S., Gutknecht, C., Saoud, M., Dalery, J., d’Amaot, T., 2000. Schizotypal
peroanlity questionnaire (SPQ): validation and factorial structure of its French
translation in a sample of 232 students [Abstract]. Encephale-revue de psychiatrie
clinique biologique et therapeutique 26, 23–29.
Duijsens, I.J., Diekstra, R.F.W., 1996. DSM-III-R and ICD-10 personality disorders and
their relationship with the big five dimensions of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences 21, 119–133.
Dyce, J.A., O'Connor, B.P., 1998. Personality disorders and the five-factor model: a test of
facet-level predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders 12, 31–45.
Eckblad, M., Chapman, L.J., 1983. Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51, 215–225.
Eckblad, M.L., Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., Mishlove, M., 1982. "The Revised Social
Anhedonia Scale." Unpublished test. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G., 1975. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Fossati, A., Raine, A., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., Maffei, C., 2003. The three-factor model of
schizotypal personality: invariance across age and gender. Personality and Individual
Differences 35, 1007–1019.
Gough, H.G., Heilbrun, A.B., 1983. The adjective check list manual. Consulting Psychologist
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Goulding, A., 2004. Schizotypy models in relation to subjective health and paranormal
beliefs and experiences. Personality and Individual Differences 37, 157–167.
Gruzelier, J., 1996. The factorial structure of schizotypy: part I. affinities with syndromes
of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 22, 611–620.
Gruzelier, J., Burgess, A., Stygall, J., Irving, G., Raine, A., 1995. Patterns of cognitive
asymmetry and syndromes of schizotypal personality. Psychiatry Research 56, 71–79.
Haigler, E.D., Widiger, T.A., 2001. Experimental manipulation of NEO-PI-R items. Journal
of Personality Assessment 77 (2), 339–358.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6, 1–55.
Hyer, L., Braswell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, P., Talbert, S., 1994. Relationship
of NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 50, 699–707.
Lenzenweger, M.F., 2006. Schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia: Paul E. Meehl's
blueprint for the experimental psychopathology and genetics of schizophrenia.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115, 195–200.
Lenzenweger, M.F., Maher, B.A., 2002. Psychometric schizotypy and motor perfor-
mance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 111, 546–555.
Liddle, P.F., 1987. The symptoms of chronic schizophrenia: a re-examination of the
positive-negative dichotomy. British Journal of Psychiatry 151, 145–151.
Liddle, P.F., Barnes, T.R.E., 1990. Syndromes of chronic schizophrenia. British Journal of
Psychiatry 157, 558–561.
Loghland, C.M., Williams, L.M., 1997. A cluster analytic study of schizotypal trait
dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences 23, 877–883.
McCreery, C., Claridge, G., 2002. Healthy schizotypy: the case of out-of-the-body
experiences. Personality and Individual Differences 32, 141–154.
Meehl, P.E., 1962. Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American Psychologist 17, 827–838.
Meehl, P.E., 1990. Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and
schizophrenia. Journal of Personality Disorders 4, 1–99.
Mason, O., Claridge, G., Jackson, M., 1995. New scale for the assessment of schizotypy.
Personality and Individual Differences 18, 7–13.
Mason, O., Claridge, G., Williams, L., 1997. Questionnaire measurement. In: Claridge, G.
(Ed.), Schizotypy: Implication for Illness and Health. InOxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 19–37.
McCrae, R.R., Costa Jr., P.T., 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. The
American Psychologist 52, 509–516.
O'Connor, B.P., 2002. A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor
model in relation to popular personality inventories. Assessment 9, 188–203.
O'Reilly, T., Dunbar, R., Bentall, R., 2001. Schizotypy and creativity: an evolutionary
connection? Personality and Individual Differences 31, 1067–1078.
Pearlson, G.D., Folley, B.S., 2007. Schizophrenia, psychiatric genetics, and Darwinian
psychiatry: an evolutionary framework. Schizophrenia Bulletin 34, 722–733.
Raine, A., 1991. The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on
DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin 17, 555–564.
Raine, A., Benishay, D., 1995. The SPQ-B: a brief screening instrument for schizotypal
personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorder 9, 346–355.
Raine, A., Lencz, T., Mednick, S.A. (Eds.), 1995. Schizotypal Personality. New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Lencz, T., Scerbo, A., Triphon, N., Kim, D., 1994. Cognitive-
perceptual, interpersonal, and disorganized features of schizotypal personality.
Schizophrenia Bulletin 20, 191–201.
83
Rawlings, D., Freeman, J.L., 1997. Measuring paranoia/suspiciousness. In: Claridge, G.
(Ed.), Schizotypy: Implication for Illness and Health. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 3–18.
Rawlings, D., Williams, B., Haslam, N., Claridge, G., 2008. Taxometric analysis supports a
dimensional latent structure for schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences
44, 1640–1651.
Reynolds, C.A., Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Venables, P.H., Sarnoff, A.M., 2000. Three-factor
models of schizotypal personality: invariance across culture, gender, religious
affiliation, family adversity, and psychopathology. Schizophrenia Bulletin 26,
603–618.
Rose, G., Barker, D.J.P., 1978. What is a case? Dichotomy or continuum. British Medical
Journal 2, 873–874.
Ross, S.R., Lutz, C.J., Bailley, S.E., 2002. Positive and negative symptoms of schizotypy
and the five-factor model: a domain and facet level analysis. Journal of Personality
Assessment 79, 53–72.
Rossi, A., Daneluzzo, E., 2002. Schizotypal dimensions in normals and schizophrenic
patients: a comparison with other clinical samples. Schizophrenia Research 54,
67–75.
Saito, T., Nakamura, T., Yokoyama, M., 2001. Standardization of big five scales using the
adjective check list. Kyushu University Psychological Research 2, 135–144.
Smyrnis, N., Evdokimidis, I., Mantas, A., Kattoulas, E., Stefanis, N.C., Constantinidis, T.S.,
Avramopoulos, D., Stefanis, C.N., 2007. Smooth pursuit eye movements in 1,087
men: effects of schizotypy, anxiety, and depression. Experimental Brain Research
179, 397–408.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., Merry, J., 1993. Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological
Assessment 5, 41–52.
Stefanis, N.C., Smyrnis, N., Avramopoulos, D., Evdokimidis, I., Ntzoufras, I., Stefanis, C.N.,
2004. Factorial composition of self-rated schizotypal traits among young males
undergoing military training. Schizophrenia Bulletin 30, 335–350.
Suhr, J.A., Spitznagel, M.B., 2001a. Factor versus cluster models of schizotypal traits. I: A
comparison of unselected and highly schizotypal samples. Schizophrenia Research
52, 231–239.
Suhr, J.A., Spitznagel, M.B., 2001b. Factor versus cluster models of schizotypal traits. II:
relation to neuropsychological impairment. Schizophrenia Research 52, 241–250.
Tien, A.Y., Costa, P.T., Eaton, W.W., 1992. Covariance of personality, neurocognition, and
schizophrenia spectrum trait in the community. Schizophrenia Research 7,
149–158.
Trull, T.J., 1992. DSM-III-R personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality:
an empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 101, 553–560.
Venables, P.H., Rector, N.A., 2000. The content and structure of schizotypy: a study
using confirmatory factor analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin 26, 587–602.
Vollema, M.J., van den Bosch, R.J., 1995. The multidimensionality of schizotypy.
Schizophrenia Bulletin 21, 19–31.
Vollema, M.G., Sitskoorn, M.M., Appels, M.C., Kahn, R.S., 2002. Does the Schizotypal
Personality Questionnaire reflect the biological-genetic vulnerability to schizo-
phrenia? Schizophrenia Research 54, 39–45.
Wada, S., 1996. Construction of the Big Five Scales of personality trait terms and concurrent
validity with NPI. The Japanese Journal of Psychology 67, 61–67 [in Japanese].
Widiger, T.A., Frances, A.J., 2002. Toward a dimensional model for the personality
disorders, In: CostaJr. Jr., P.A., Widiger, T.A. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 23–44.
Widiger, T.A., Trull, T.J., Clarkin, J.F., Sanderson, C., Costa Jr., P.T., 2002. A description of the
DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality, In: CostaJr. Jr.,
P.A., Widiger, T.A. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 89–99.
West, K.Y., 1999. Cognitive and perceptual aberrations and the five-factor model.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 5118B.
Wiggins, J., Pincus, A.L., 1989. Conceptual of personality disorders and dimensions of
personality. Psychological Assessment. A Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 1, 305–316.
Williams, L.M., 1994. The multidimensional nature of schizotypal traits: a cluster
analytic study. Personality and Individual Differences 16, 103–112.
Williams, L.M., 1995. Further evidence for a multidimensional personality disposition
to schizophrenia in terms of cognitive inhibition. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology 34, 193–213.
Yang, J., Dai, X., Yao, S., Cai, T., Gao, B., McCrae, R., Costa Jr., P.T., 2002. Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality in Chinese psychiatric patients,
In: CostaJr. Jr., P.A., Widiger, T.A. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 215–221.
Yeung, A.S., Lyons, M.J., Waternaux, C.M., Faraone, S.V., Tsuang, M.T., 1993. The
relationship between DSM-III personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality. Comprehensive Psychiatry 34, 227–234.