A large correlational study took a latent-variable approach to the generality of executive control by testing the individual-differences structure of executive-attention capabilities and assessing their prediction of schizotypy, a multidimensional construct (with negative, positive, disorganized, and paranoid factors) conveying risk for schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia is convincingly linked to executive deficits, the schizotypy literature is equivocal. Subjects completed tasks of working memory capacity (WMC), attention restraint (inhibiting prepotent responses), and attention constraint (focusing visual attention amid distractors), the latter two in an effort to fractionate the “inhibition” construct. We also assessed mind-wandering propensity (via in-task thought probes) and coefficient of variation in response times (RT CoV) from several tasks as more novel indices of executive attention. WMC, attention restraint, attention constraint, mind wandering, and RT CoV were correlated but separable constructs, indicating some distinctions among “attention control” abilities; WMC correlated more strongly with attentional restraint than constraint, and mind wandering correlated more strongly with attentional restraint, attentional constraint, and RT CoV than with WMC. Across structural models, no executive construct predicted negative schizotypy and only mind wandering and RT CoV consistently (but modestly) predicted positive, disorganized, and paranoid schizotypy; stalwart executive constructs in the schizophrenia literature — WMC and attention restraint — showed little to no predictive power, beyond restraint’s prediction of paranoia. Either executive deficits are consequences rather than risk factors for schizophrenia, or executive failures barely precede or precipitate diagnosable schizophrenia symptoms.

Undergraduates (n = 274) participated in a week-long daily-life experience-sampling study of mind-wandering after being assessed for executive-control abilities (working memory capacity [WMC], attention-restraint ability, attention-constraint ability, propensity for task-unrelated thoughts [TUTs]) and personality traits. Electronic devices probed subjects 8 times/day about their current thoughts and context. WMC and attention abilities predicted laboratory TUTs, but they only predicted daily-life mind-wandering as a function of subjects’ momentary attempts to concentrate. This pattern replicates prior daily-life findings but conflicts with laboratory findings. Personality factors also yielded divergent lab-life associations: Only neuroticism predicted laboratory TUTs but only openness predicted daily-life mind-wandering (both predicted daily-life mind-wandering content). Cognitive and personality factors also predicted dimensions of everyday thought other than mind-wandering, such as subjective controllability. Mind-wandering in people’s daily environments has different correlates (and perhaps causes) than TUTs during controlled and artificial laboratory tasks. Thus, mind-wandering theories based solely on lab phenomena may be incomplete.

Positive and negative schizotypy exhibit differential patterns of impairment in social relations, affect, and functioning in daily life. However, studies have not examined the association of schizotypy with real-world expression of psychotic-like, paranoid, and negative symptoms. The present study employed experience-sampling methodology (ESM) to assess positive and negative schizotypy in daily life in a nonclinical sample of 206 Spanish young adults. Participants were prompted randomly 8 times daily for 1 week to complete assessments of their current symptoms and experiences. Positive schizotypy was associated with psychotic-like and paranoid symptoms in daily life. Negative schizotypy was associated with a subset of these symptoms and with negative symptoms in daily life. Momentary stress was associated with psychotic-like and paranoid symptoms, but only for those high in positive schizotypy. Social stress predicted momentary psychotic-like symptoms in both positive and negative schizotypy. Time-lagged analyses indicated that stress at the preceding signal predicted psychotic-like symptoms at the current assessment, but only for individuals high in positive schizotypy. The results are consistent with models linking stress sensitivity with the experience of psychotic symptoms. The findings provide cross-cultural support for the multidimensional model of schizotypy and schizophrenia. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that ESM is an effective method for predicting the experience of psychotic-like symptoms, as well as their precursors, in daily life.

Synesthesia has historically been linked with enhanced creativity, but this had never been demonstrated in a systematically recruited sample. The current study offers a broad examination of creativity, personality, cognition, and mental imagery in a small sample of systematically recruited synesthetes and controls (n = 65). Synesthetes scored higher on some measures of creativity, personality traits of absorption and openness, and cognitive abilities of verbal comprehension and mental imagery. The differences were smaller than those reported in the literature, indicating that previous studies may have overestimated group differences, perhaps due to biased recruitment procedures. Nonetheless, most of our results replicated literature findings, yielding two possibilities: (1) our study was influenced by similar biases, or (2) differences between synesthetes and controls, though modest, are robust across recruitment methods. The covariance among our measures warrants interpretation of these differences as a pattern of associations with synesthesia, leaving open the possibility that this pattern could be explained by differences on a single measured trait, or even a hidden, untested trait. More generally, this study highlights the difficulty of comparing groups of people in psychology, not to mention neuropsychology and neuroimaging studies. The requirements discussed here – systematic recruitment procedures, large battery of tests, and large cohorts – are best fulfilled through collaborative efforts and cumulative science.