Differentiating Kinds of Systemic Stressors With Relation to Psychotic-Like Experiences in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: The Stimulation, Discrepancy, and Deprivation Model of Psychosis

Abstract

Conceptualizations that distinguish systems-level stress exposures are lacking; the stimulation (lack of safety and high attentional demands), discrepancy (social exclusion and lack of belonging), and deprivation (SDD; lack of environmental enrichment) theory of psychosis and stressors occurring at the systems level has not been directly tested. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 3,207 youths, and associations with psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) were explored. Although model fit was suboptimal, five factors were defined, and four were consistent with the SDD theory and related to PLEs. Objective and subjective or self-report exposures for deprivation showed significantly stronger PLE associations compared with discrepancy and objective stimulation factors. Objective and subjective or self-report measures converged overall, although self-report stimulation exhibited a significantly stronger association with PLEs compared with objective stimulation. Considering distinct systems-level exposures could help clarify putative mechanisms and psychosis vulnerability. The preliminary approach potentially informs health policy efforts aimed at psychopathology prevention and intervention.

Differentiating distinct and converging neural correlates of types of systemic environmental exposures

“…In a recent study, our group found support for the theory with regards to separating hypothesized stimulation, discrepancy and deprivation domains, and relating them to mental illness vulnerability (Vargas et al, 2021). The current study tested the neural structures hypothesized to relate to each domain, finding partial support for the theory.…”

“…For discrepancy , the ABCD Parent Multi‐Group Ethnic Identity‐Revised Survey (MEIM) and ABCD Parent Vancouver Index of Acculturation (VIA) scales were used, consistent with evidence that a lack of sense of belonging within one's culture, along with lack of participation and engagement with the majority culture and with one's culture, are cultural/systems level factors that can confer a lack of social capital and social exclusion (Emerson, Minh, & Guhn, 2018; Veling et al, 2008; Yang, Lei, & Kurtulus, 2018). For objective measures within the discrepancy domain, neighborhood income inequality was chosen, given evidence of high income inequality being linked to lack of belonging and feeling of social exclusion, consistent with the discrepancy domain (Vargas et al, 2021; Vargas et al, 2020). For the deprivation domain, the ABCD parent's demographic survey was used to index lack of access to environmental enrichment (with questions probing for access to resources such as access to doctors if needed, food, and utilities; Table S1).…”

“…See Garavan et al (2018) for more information on demographics and Karcher and Barch (2021) for information on psychopathology measures. For subjective environmental factors, the sample from our group's earlier work delineating factors within the SDD theory was used, including 7,443 participants with available subjective environmental domain data (Vargas et al, 2021). The initial sample for objective environmental factors included 10,213 participants who had available structural imaging and geocoded data.…”

“…To this end, a recent review delineated three systemic environmental exposure dimensions based on available evidence from epidemiological and neuroscience literature (Vargas, Conley, & Mittal, 2020). The resulting stimulation, deprivation, and discrepancy (SDD) model posed three environmental exposure dimensions that are theorized to confer both converging and distinguishable effects on neural structure (figure 1 in the study by Vargas et al, 2020; Vargas, Damme, Osborne, & Mittal, 2021). The environmental dimensions include stimulation exposures, with intermediary mechanisms of high sensory demands and lack of safety (e.g., high neighborhood crime and population density), discrepancy exposures, with intermediary mechanisms of social exclusion, low social capital and lack of belonging (e.g., high neighborhood income inequality), and deprivation exposures with intermediary mechanisms of lack of environmental enrichment (e.g., neighborhood median family income).…”

“…In an earlier study, the specificity of the environmental domains in the SDD theory was tested through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Environmental dimensions were distinguishable and related to vulnerability to psychopathology (Vargas et al, 2021). As such, some support has been found in the ABCD data for the distinctness of the domains.…”