The valuation of social rewards in schizophrenia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social impairment in schizophrenia is often thought to reflect poor social cognition. Here we examine responses to social rewards, an aspect of social functioning that is not featured prominently in the literature. The goal of this experiment was to explore whether people with schizophrenia (a) undervalue social rewards, and (b) whether the undervaluation of social rewards was related to motivation and pleasure deficits in schizophrenia and decreased social functioning. People with schizophrenia and healthy participants completed a game (Shore & Heerey, 2011) to explore preferences for different types of social (polite and genuine smiles) and nonsocial (monetary) rewards from computerized opponents. Preferences for reward types were quantified for each participant based on choice behavior during the game. Participants also completed a smile discrimination task to assess their ability to discriminate these types of smiles. Analyses revealed that people with schizophrenia (N = 41) treated genuine smiles as significantly less rewarding than did healthy participants (N = 29), despite showing a similar preference for monetary rewards. The undervaluation of social rewards was not related to the ability to discriminate between the smiles. The current findings provide preliminary evidence of reduced social reward valuation among individuals with schizophrenia, which may have implications for behavior in face-to-face social interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".