Elsevier

Schizophrenia Research

Volume 216, February 2020, Pages 56-68
Schizophrenia Research

Ecological momentary assessment of everyday social experiences of people with schizophrenia: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.10.021Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

Our goal in the current review was to summarize the existing literature on the utility of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in assessing the social experiences of people with schizophrenia (SZ). We were further interested in examining the associations between EMA-reported social outcomes and traditional assessments of social functioning.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of EMA studies published between January 1, 1990 and October 31, 2018 from PubMed and PsycINFO electronic databases. We included EMA studies that assessed social experiences (proportion of time spent alone/with others, affective experiences when with others, social stress, factors related to social experiences) in people with SZ. We included studies that examined associations between laboratory-based, self-report, or clinical assessments of functioning with EMA-reported social experiences.

Results

We identified 22 EMA studies for inclusion in this review. Though heterogeneous in aspects of social experiences assessed, the current literature suggests that people with SZ report more social stress and a preference to be alone when they are with others (nine out of 10 studies). People with SZ report more positive affect when they are with others compared to being alone, and equivalent amounts of positive affect during social experiences as healthy controls (all four studies assessed). Five studies assessed the coherence between functioning assessments and momentary social experiences, with mixed results.

Conclusion

We discuss limitations of the literature and future directions. EMA shows promise in assessing more granular aspects of social experience (including social stress and social pleasure) in people with SZ compared to other methods.

Introduction

Our ability to navigate our social world is a key facet of daily life. People with schizophrenia (SZ) exhibit difficulties with multiple domains of social functioning, including social skill deficits (Bellack et al., 1990; Mueser et al., 1991), social cognition impairments (Green et al., 2015), loneliness (Lim et al., 2018), reduced social network size (Gayer-Anderson and Morgan, 2013), social motivation impairments (Fulford et al., 2018), and elevated trait social anhedonia (Blanchard et al., 1994, 2001). Studies of social impairment in SZ have relied primarily on retrospective or trait self-report interviews, questionnaires, or laboratory-based measures of functioning (e.g., role plays, facial emotion identification tasks), assessments that have had their reliability and ecological validity called into question (Bowie et al., 2007; Burns and Patrick, 2007; Sabbag et al., 2012; Yager and Ehmann, 2006). Limitations of these methods include lack of coverage of context-specific aspects of social experiences in a naturalistic setting (e.g., how one feels in the presence of a family member versus a stranger) as well as the difficulties in examining interactions among different social experiences over time (e.g., whether positive affect experienced during social activity predicts future social activity). These important qualities of the social worlds of people with SZ are left unmeasured in currently available “gold-standard” functioning assessments.

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), also known as the experience sampling method, allows researchers to understand participants’ in-the-moment, everyday experiences. Typically, participants are provided with a mobile device (e.g., a Personal Digital Assistant, digital wristwatch, smartphone) that is programmed to signal them multiple times per day over a series of days or weeks to answer brief, specific questions as they go about their daily life. EMA has many strengths over traditional functioning assessment methods. It allows for the relatively unobtrusive, remote assessment of a variety of context-specific experiences, thus providing a more ecologically valid assessment of phenomena (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 2014; Devries, 1987; Myin-Germeys et al., 2009; Shiffman et al., 2008). EMA does not require a participant to summarize experiences over a long duration of time, minimizing the biases inherent in other self-report assessments. For example, a person may more easily and accurately reflect on a recent social interaction through EMA (e.g., “How involved were you in your most recent interaction?“) compared to reflecting on several previous social interactions during an interview (e.g., “How involved were in you all of your social interactions over the past month?“). Further, EMA does not rely as heavily on cognitive skills that people with SZ often struggle with and other assessment strategies rely on, such as memory and abstract reasoning. For example, one might obtain a more accurate assessment of social pleasure by asking a person with SZ to reflect on how they feel immediately following a social interaction using EMA versus asking them to imagine how they would feel in a hypothetical social interaction (e.g., on a survey) or how they feel in response to a smiling face on a computer screen (e.g., in a laboratory task).

Because laboratory-based and clinical assessments are used to make inferences about the social functioning of people with SZ, it is important to understand whether they are related to the social experiences that people with SZ have in their daily lives or whether they represent other constructs that are correlated with one’s social world (e.g., beliefs about one’s social competence, social experience memory recall, etc.). For example, recent research has shown that people with SZ show intact hedonic responding in the presence of positive social interactions in laboratory settings (Aghevli et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2019) despite reporting social anhedonia on trait-based measures (Blanchard et al., 1994, 2001). Thus, different assessment methods may measure different aspects of social pleasure (e.g., in-the-moment hedonic responding versus beliefs regarding social pleasure) rather than reflecting the same dysfunction (“social anhedonia”). If EMA-reported social experiences during real-world social interactions relate to clinical functioning assessments, this would suggest that the two methods reflect the same construct. Alternatively, if social functioning assessments are not related to EMA-reported social outcomes, these methods may reflect separate constructs under the broader umbrella of “social functioning” in SZ.

While EMA has been used as a method to understand the social experiences of people with SZ over the past two decades, no systematic efforts to date have been conducted to summarize our understanding of this literature. As such, in the current study, we systematically reviewed research that utilized EMA to understand the social experiences of people with SZ. Our primary goals were to 1) examine the utility of using EMA to assess everyday social experiences in people with SZ, and 2) explore whether EMA-reported social outcomes were related to traditional social functioning assessments. We were interested in aspects of experiences related to time participants spent both alone (including the quantity of time spent alone, the affective experience of being alone, and whether participants preferred to be with others) and with others (including whom participants spent time with, the extent of involvement in a given social experience, the affective experience of being with others, whether participants preferred to be alone when with others, and factors related to spending time with others). We were also interested in EMA studies that included laboratory-based or clinical assessments of functioning, to better understand whether and in what contexts these measures were related to momentary social experiences of people with SZ. We included discussion of differences between people with and without SZ for each domain of social experience assessed through EMA when studies included a healthy comparison group. Additionally, when relevant, we included discussion of the relationship between other outcomes that were studied (e.g., psychiatric symptoms) and these domains of momentary social experiences in people with SZ.

Section snippets

Literature search strategy

We conducted a systematic review of EMA studies assessing our pre-determined characterizations of social experiences. We utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) guidelines for this review. The electronic databases of PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for combinations of the following key word terms within the abstract of a given study: “schizo*“, “psychosis”, or “psychotic”; and “ecological momentary”, “experience sampl*“,

Results

The database search and reference list review returned 139 results, providing 118 unique articles after duplicates were removed (see Fig. 1). After 47 articles were excluded at the title/abstract stage of review, a remaining 49 were excluded after reviewing the full text of the citation. At this stage, articles were excluded due to the following reasons: researchers utilized EMA to assess outcomes other than social experiences (n = 28); researchers utilized EMA to assess an aspect of social

Discussion

In this review, we summarize studies conducted over the past two decades on the assessment of social experiences in people with SZ using EMA. Despite the heterogeneity of questions asked, EMA has provided granular assessments of a variety of social experiences, including quantity of experiences across discrete periods, affect in the context of social activity, and the relationship between social experiences and other facets of the disorder (symptoms, stigma, suicidality, etc.). While many

Role of the funding source

The authors declare no source for this manuscript.

Contributors

All authors contributed to this manuscript with conception and design of the study, literature review and analysis, drafting, and critical revision and editing. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Samuel Abplanalp, Cristina Colon-Semenza, Arti Gandhi, and Kathryn Gill for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References (61)

  • C. Hooker et al.

    Emotion processing and its relationship to social functioning in schizophrenia patients

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2002)
  • M. Janssens et al.

    Emotion recognition in psychosis: No evidence for an association with real world social functioning

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2012)
  • Z. Kasanova et al.

    Social anhedonia and asociality in psychosis revisited. An experience sampling study

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2018)
  • D. Kimhy et al.

    Use of mobile assessment technologies in inpatient psychiatric settings

    Asian J. Psychiatry.

    (2014)
  • P. Leendertse et al.

    Subjective quality of life in psychosis: evidence for an association with real world functioning?

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2018)
  • K.T. Mueser et al.

    Prevalence and stability of social skill deficits in schizophrenia

    Schizophr. Res.

    (1991)
  • S. Sabbag et al.

    Predictors of the accuracy of self assessment of everyday functioning in people with schizophrenia

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2012)
  • M. van’t Wout et al.

    Emotional processing in a non-clinical psychosis-prone sample

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2004)
  • D. Vasconcelos e Sa et al.

    Expressed Emotion and behaviourally controlling interactions in the daily life of dyads experiencing psychosis

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2016)
  • C. Barrowclough et al.

    Social functioning in schizophrenia patients: the effects of expressed emotion and family intervention

    Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol.

    (1990)
  • I.H. Bell et al.

    Ecological momentary assessment and intervention in the treatment of psychotic disorders: a systematic review

    Psychiatr. Serv.

    (2017)
  • A.S. Bellack et al.

    An analysis of social competence in schizophrenia

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (1990)
  • D. Ben-Zeev et al.

    Predictors of self-stigma in schizophrenia: new insights using mobile technologies

    J. Dual Diagnosis

    (2012)
  • N. Berry et al.

    Social media and its relationship with mood, self-esteem and paranoia in psychosis

    Acta Psychiatr. Scand.

    (2018)
  • W.B. Bilker et al.

    Development of an abbreviated schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale using a new method

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2003)
  • M. Birchwood et al.

    The Social Functioning Scale: the development and validation of a new scale of social adjustment for use in family intervention programmes with schizophrenia patients

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (1990)
  • J.J. Blanchard et al.

    Affective and social-behavioral correlates of physical and social anhedonia in schizophrenia

    J. Abnorm. Psychol.

    (1994)
  • J.J. Blanchard et al.

    Diagnostic differences in social anhedonia: a longitudinal study of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder

    J. Abnorm. Psychol.

    (2001)
  • T. Burns et al.

    Social functioning as an outcome measure in schizophrenia studies

    Acta Psychiatr. Scand.

    (2007)
  • A.S. Cohen et al.

    Emotional experience in patients with schizophrenia revisited: meta-analysis of laboratory studies

    Schizophr. Bull.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text