Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0251753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251753

Psychosis proneness, loneliness, and hallucinations in nonclinical individuals

Sarah Hope Lincoln 1,*, Taylor Johnson 1, Sarah Kim 1, Emma Edenbaum 2, Jill M Hooley 3
Editor: Thomas M Olino4
PMCID: PMC8162617  PMID: 34048447

Abstract

Hallucinations occur along a continuum of normal functioning. Investigating the factors related to this experience in nonclinical individuals may offer important information for understanding the etiology of hallucinations in psychiatric populations. In this study we test the relationship between psychosis proneness, loneliness, and auditory hallucinations in a nonclinical sample using the White Christmas paradigm. Seventy-six undergraduate students participated in this study. We found that slightly more than half of our participants endorsed a hallucinatory experience during the White Christmas paradigm. However, we did not observe a relationship between the number of hallucinatory experiences and schizotypy, propensity to hallucinate, or loneliness. Moreover, there were no differences on these measures between individuals who reported hearing a hallucination during the White Christmas paradigm relative to those who did not. Thus, there may be other contextual factors not investigated in this study that might clarify the mechanism by which auditory hallucinations are experienced in a nonclinical population.

Introduction

Auditory hallucinations (a sensory experience of hearing something in the absence of any actual auditory stimulus) are not limited exclusively to individuals with psychotic disorders [1]. Rather, hallucinations occur along a continuum of normal functioning and are reported in nonclinical individuals [2, 3]. Approximately 9.6% of the general population endorses having a hallucination their lifetime [4]. What is less well understood is the mechanism that may explain why some healthy individuals hear hallucinations and others do not.

Previous research suggests that individual differences across a variety of factors explain some of the variance in hallucinatory experiences. Emotional states, for example high levels of negative affect, are associated with a propensity to hear hallucinations [5]. Cognitive factors, such as positive beliefs about unusual experiences [6, 7], are also associated with a propensity to hallucinate. Other work suggests that fantasy-proneness [810] is associated with a hallucination predisposition. Individual differences in schizotypy may also explain variance in hallucinatory experiences. Schizotypy is a personality dimension that indicates a propensity to develop schizophrenia, and may reflect a psychosis phenotype [11]. Schizotypy has three dimensional factors which correspond with the positive, negative, and disorganized symptoms in schizophrenia [12]. Schizotypal characteristics include magical thinking, paranoia, unusual perceptual experiences, odd beliefs and behavior, disorganized speech, and social anhedonia. Schizophrenia spectrum disorders and schizotypy share commonalities across neuropsychological, social and environmental, and biological factors [13].

Though individual differences may predispose some people to hallucinations other research suggests that situational context is also important. In particular, a diathesis-stress model suggests that individuals with a predisposition for hallucinations are more likely to experience hallucinations in the context of stress. For example, in a signal detection task in which individuals were told to listen for speech embedded in white noise (even though no speech was actually embedded in the white noise), people with high levels of trait anxiety reported more false alarms (i.e., hallucinations) in stressful versus non-stressful conditions [14]. In another study, Crowe and colleagues [15] found that individuals with high levels of recent caffeine intake were more likely to report an auditory hallucination in the context of stress relative to no-stress. Although preliminary, research such as this highlights the importance of context in the experience of hallucinations.

One way of exploring the types of contexts in which hallucinations may be reported by the general population is through the White Christmas paradigm. This is a type of signal detection task where individuals are asked to indicate if a signal is present. The task involves telling participants that they will be hearing white noise and that fragments of the Bing Crosby song White Christmas may be embedded in the white noise. In actuality, the song is never played [8]. In this type of task any false positive is considered a hallucination because it is the detection of a signal in the absence of an actual signal [14]. The White Christmas paradigm has been repeatedly used to test the propensity to hallucinate in different nonclinical samples. For example, Crowe et al. [15] used this paradigm when examining the role of caffeine and stress on auditory hallucinations in healthy adults, finding that only in the presence of both high caffeine intake and high stress did healthy adults report auditory hallucinations.

In the current study, using a modification of the White Christmas paradigm, we tested the experience of auditory hallucinations in the context of loneliness. Loneliness is a specific stressor that has been linked to psychotic-like experiences Previous work suggests that aspects of social isolation, like living alone or feeling lonely, are associated with emergence of psychotic-like symptoms [16]. The association between loneliness and hallucinations has been demonstrated across several different disorders including borderline personality disorder [17], Alzheimer’s disease [18], and psychosis [19]. Additionally, in the presence of loneliness, psychotic-like symptoms increased for individuals with high levels of negative and disorganized schizotypal traits [20]. This finding supports the argument that the context of loneliness might increase the likelihood of psychotic-like experiences in already vulnerable individuals.

Based on past research using the White Christmas paradigm, we expected that a portion of participants would report hallucinations (i.e., false alarms) during this task. We hypothesized that higher scores on measures of psychosis-proneness such as schizotypy and propensity to hallucinate would be correlated with a greater number of reported hallucinations. Additionally, we expected to find a significant relationship between psychosis-proneness and loneliness. Finally, we hypothesized that loneliness would mediate the relationship between the number of hallucinations and psychosis-proneness.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited from two universities (N = 76, 42 females) with a mean age of 19.68 years (SD = 1.38). Approximately 56.6% of the sample identified as white, 6.6% as African American, 26.3% as Asian, 10.5% as having another racial background, and 13.2% identifying as having a Latino/Hispanic identity. Participants were recruited through the psychology departments’ research participation systems. Individuals received course credit for participation in the study. Participants were told that this study was about social and auditory perceptions; they were not aware of the study’s intent to elicit hallucinatory experiences, thus preventing response bias in our sample.

Measures

Loneliness was assessed by the R-UCLA [21]. The R-UCLA measure is a 20-item scale designed to measure self-reported loneliness and consists of a series of first-person statements regarding companionship and feelings of belonging. Higher scores indicate greater loneliness.

The presence of schizotypy was assessed by the 38-item Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale–Brief (MSS-B) [22]. The MSS-B assesses positive, negative, and disorganized schizotypy traits, via 13 positive, 13 negative, and 12 disorganized items. Sample items from the positive, negative, and disorganized subscales are as follows, respectively: “I have sometimes felt that strangers were reading my mind,” “I have always preferred to be disconnected from the world,” and “Most of the time I find it is very difficult to get my thoughts in order.” Participants respond to first-person statements on a true-false scale.

The 13-item Revised Hallucination Scale (RHS) [6] was used to measure proneness to a range of hallucinatory experiences including vivid thoughts, intrusive thoughts, vivid daydreams, auditory hallucinations, and visual hallucinations. Participants respond to first-person statements paired with a true-false scale. The RHS items were adapted from the original Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale [23].

Preliminary pilot testing suggested that the song White Christmas was not highly familiar to our sample population of college undergraduates. We therefore adapted the White Christmas paradigm [8] for use in this study and used the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow sung by Judy Garland. This song was better known to students in our pilot testing. Low white noise from the soundtrack White Noise: Loopable White Noise Sounds for Sleep and Relaxation was played for three minutes.

Procedure

This study was approved by the Case Western Reserve University Institutional Review Board. On arrival at the lab, participants first provided written consent. They then completed the modified White Christmas paradigm. First, participants listened to the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Then participants were told that they would listen to a white noise track via headphones for approximately three minutes. Before listening to the white noise, participants were given the following instructions based on the prompt from the Merckelbach and van de Ven [8] study:

“The Somewhere Over the Rainbow song you just heard might be embedded in the white noise below the auditory threshold. If you think or believe that you hear the song clearly, please press the button in front of you. Of course, you may press the button several times if you think that you heard several fragments of the song.”

Participants were instructed to press the “y” key on the keyboard if at any time they believed they heard fragments of Somewhere Over the Rainbow embedded within the white noise. After completing the White Christmas task, the participants completed all self-report questionnaires.

Data analysis

For this study we planned to first conduct correlation analyses assessing the relationships between number of hallucinations and both schizotypy and propensity to hallucinate. If a significant relationship is found between either the number of hallucinations and schizotypy or the number of hallucinations and propensity to hallucinate, we will conduct mediation analyses, testing loneliness as the mediator between these variables.

Results

Even though participants were not selected for psychopathology a majority of our sample, forty-five participants (59.2%), reported a false alarm, or hallucination. The number of reported hallucinations ranged from 1 to 16 with a mean of 2.59 hallucinations per participant. Means and standard deviations for all questionnaires are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the White Christmas Paradigm, Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS), Revised Hallucination Scale, and the UCLA Loneliness Scale.

Questionnaires Mean (Std Dev) N = 76
White Christmas Paradigm (# of button-presses) 2.59 (3.46)
MSS Total 3.18 (3.38)
MSS Positive 1.10 (1.65)
MSS Negative .93 (1.38)
MSS Disorganized 1.15 (2.03)
Revised Hallucination Scale 2.51 (1.94)
UCLA Loneliness Scale 35.93 (8.13)

We hypothesized that the number of hallucinations reported by each individual would be associated with their self-reports of schizotypy and propensity to hallucinate, and that loneliness would mediate these relationships. Because skew and kurtosis contributed to lack of normality in our data, we performed a base 10 logarithm transformation of our variables. In total we ran seven correlations. Using a Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple tests this means that a p value of .007 is required for significance. Our analyses revealed no association between the number of hallucinations and self-reports of schizotypy (r = .04, p = .731), propensity to hallucinate (r = .11, p = .403), or loneliness (r = 0.02, p = .878). Because there was not a statistically significant relationship between our variables of interest, a mediation analyses was no longer appropriate for our data.

To further confirm the lack of significant associations, in a post-hoc analyses we divided our participants into two groups—individuals who reported no hallucinations versus individuals who reported hallucinations (meaning that they heard the song in the white noise). We hypothesized that individuals who reported hallucinations would have higher schizotypy scores, a greater propensity to hallucinate, and higher reports of loneliness. T-tests revealed no difference between these two groups in regard to schizotypy (M1 = 3.43, M2 = 3.01, t = 1.24, p = .219), propensity to hallucinate (M1 = 2.80, M2 = 2.32, t = .55, p = .583) or loneliness (M1 = 35.26, M2 = 36.41, t = .60, p = 553). We also compared participants in the upper and lower quartiles of hallucination reports. As before, there was no difference between these groups of individuals on schizotypy (t = -.40, p = .69), propensity to hallucinate (t = .57, r = .57), or loneliness (t = -1.12, p = .27). Our primary hypothesis, that the frequency of hallucinations would be associated with psychosis-proneness and loneliness was not supported.

Finally, we examined the hypothesis that individuals who experienced higher rates of loneliness would also have higher rates of schizotypy. We found a significant positive correlation between loneliness and schizotypy, such that individuals who reported higher rates of loneliness also endorsed more schizotypal traits (r = .40, p < .001). Specifically, loneliness was significantly associated with scores on the negative subscale (r = .51, p < .001) and the disorganized subscale (r = .31, p = .007), but not the positive subscale (r = .002, p = .990) on the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale-Brief. These correlations remained even when social anhedonia items from the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale that might overlap with the items on the UCLA Loneliness scale were removed.

Discussion

We investigated the extent to which loneliness and schizotypy were associated with hallucinations in a healthy undergraduate sample. Using a modification of the White Christmas paradigm, we found that over half of our participants (59.2%) reported at least one hallucination experience during this task. This figure is slightly higher than findings from previous studies where approximately 32% [8] and 35% [9] of undergraduates reported hallucinations.

Although we hypothesized a relationship between the number of hallucinations and both schizotypy scores and a propensity to hallucinate we found no such association. Our hypothesis that loneliness would mediate these relationships was therefore not supported. In follow-up analyses we also found no significant differences in schizotypy scores, propensity to hallucinate, or loneliness between individuals who reported hallucinations relative to those who did not report hallucinations.

It should be noted that the percentage of people reporting hallucinations during our task is large enough to suggest that there is some phenomenon occurring and these hallucinatory experiences are more than noise in the data. As such, there are several possible reasons that we did not find this expected relationship. It is possible that the demands of the task override the actual experience of hallucinations, with people feeling a need to “perform” well on the task and report a fake hallucination. Perhaps if we had looked at the degree of confidence with which people reported the hallucinations, we may have obtained a more accurate count of those who genuinely believed they experienced a hallucination. Additionally, we may not have seen the relationship between hallucinations and psychosis-proneness because our sample had a limited range of schizotypy scores. The Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale-Brief has a total possible score of 38, and our sample fell within a range of zero to 15. Perhaps the relationship we were attempting to detect occurs only in individuals with higher schizotypy scores and our truncated sample did not capture these individuals. Finally, it may be that the relationship between psychosis-proneness and hallucination occurs only in the presence of an acute stressor, as found in the Crowe et al. [15] study. Loneliness may not have functioned as a significant acute stressor in our model.

Of note, we did find a significant positive relationship between schizotypy and loneliness scores. Undergraduate students who endorsed more schizotypal items also reported more loneliness in their day-to-day lives. This is consistent with previous research indicating that loneliness is related to psychotic-like experiences and is a risk factor for the development of psychotic disorders [19, 20]. Additionally, this finding might have important implications for interventions on loneliness with individuals who might be at risk for psychosis [24].

In light of the lack of expected relationship between number of hallucinations and reports of psychosis-proneness and loneliness, we remain curious about what factors and contexts might be associated with hallucinations in nonclinical individuals. The White Christmas paradigm predictably elicits hallucinations in a sizable portion of individuals [8, 9, 15] making this a promising approach for understanding hallucinations in a nonclinical sample. In this study we investigated whether loneliness might explain a relationship between psychosis-proneness and hallucinations. We explored the data in a number of different ways, increasing our confidence that this relationship does not exist in our sample. Future research should investigate individuals with higher rates of schizotypy traits and potentially individuals at clinical high risk for psychotic disorders; these people may be more vulnerable for the experience of hallucinations. We should note that we modified the original paradigm in two ways. First, we did not use the song White Christmas. Second, white noise can vary a great deal in its frequencies and intensities; we do not know what white noise was used in the original paradigms and it is possible their white noise differs from the white noise we used. However, we do not think these two modifications have an effect on our data, as we see approximately the same percentage of individuals reporting hallucinations in the white noise as with previous studies. We may also be limited by examining these phenomenon in a college student sample. An additional limitation is that the correlational nature of this study did not allow us to look at the mechanism by which the phenomenon may be occurring. Our analyses do not directly assess the mechanism. Additionally, the hypothesized relationships may only occur in situations in which there is an acute stressor and future research could test for the relationship between hallucinations and psychosis-proneness in the presence of an acute social stressors such as rejection or exclusion. Ultimately, the applicability of this paradigm may be for a different combination of risk factors that have yet to be tested.

Data Availability

The data are available in the Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/85yvr/.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ford J.M., Morris S.E., Hoffman R.E., Sommer I., Waters F., et al. (2014). Studying hallucinations within the NIMH RDoC framework. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 40, S295–S304. 10.1093/schbul/sbu011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Johns L.C. & van Os J. (2001). The continuity of psychotic experiences in the general population. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(8), 1125–1141. 10.1016/s0272-7358(01)00103-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Choong C., Hunter M.D., & Woodruff P.W.R. (2007). Auditory hallucinations in those populations that do not suffer from schizophrenia. Current Psychiatry Reports, 9, 206–212. 10.1007/s11920-007-0020-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maijer K., Begemann M., Palmen S., Leucht S., & Sommer I. (2018). Auditory hallcuinations across the lifespan: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 48(6), 879–888. 10.1017/S0033291717002367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Allen P., Freeman D., McGuire P., Garety P., Kuipers E., Fowler D., et al. (2005). The prediction of hallucinatory predisposition in non-clinical individuals: Examining the contribution of emotion and reasoning. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(1), 127–132. 10.1348/014466504X20044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Morrison A. P., Wells A., & Nothard S. (2000). Cognitive factors in predisposition to auditory and visual hallucinations. Br J Clin Psychol, 39(1), 67–78. 10.1348/014466500163112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Morrison A.P., Wells A., & Nothard S. (2002). Cognitive and emotional predictors of predisposition to hallucinations in non-patients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 259–270. 10.1348/014466502760379127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Merckelbach H., & van de Ven V. (2001). Another White Christmas: fantasy proneness and reports of ’hallucinatory experiences’ in undergraduate students. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 32(3), 137–144. 10.1016/s0005-7916(01)00029-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van de Ven V., & Merckelbach H. (2003). The role of schizotypy, mental imagery, and fantasy proneness in hallucinatory reports of undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(889–896). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.van t’Wout M., Aleman A., Kessels R.P.C., Laroi F., & Kahn R.S. (2004). Emotional processing in a non-clinical psychosis-prone sample. Schizophrenia Research, 68(2–3), 271–281. 10.1016/j.schres.2003.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.van Os J., Linscott R.J., Myin-Germeys I., Delespaul P. & Krabbendam L. (2009). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: Evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychological Medicine, 39(2), 179–195. 10.1017/S0033291708003814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nelson M.T., Seal M.L., Pantelis C., & Phillips L.J. (2013). Evidence of a dimensional relationship between schizotypy and schizophrenia: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 317–327. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nelson M.T., Seal M.L., Pantelis C., & Phillips L.J. (2013). Evidence of a dimensional relationship between schizotypy and schizophrenia: A systematic review. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 37(3), 317–327. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hoskin R., Hunter M.D., & Woodruff P.W. (2014). The effect of psychological stress and expectation on auditory perception: a signal detection analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 524–546. 10.1111/bjop.12048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Crowe S.F., Barot J., Caldow S., d’Aspromonte J., Dell’Orso J., Di Clemente A. et al. (2011). The effect of caffeine and stress on auditory hallucinations in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 626–630. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Butter S., Murphy J., Shevlin M., & Houston J. (2017). Social isolation and psychosis-like experiences: a UK general population analysis. Psychosis, 9(4), 291–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Slotema C.W., Bayrak H., Linszen M.M.J., Deen M., & Sommer I.E.C. (2019). Hallucinations in patients with borderline personality disorder: Characteristics, severity, and relationship with schizotypy and loneliness. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 139, 434–442. 10.1111/acps.13012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.El Haj M., Jardri R., Laroi F. & Antoine P. (2016). Hallucinations, loneliness, and social isolation in Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 10.1080/13546805.2015.1121139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Michalska da Rocha B., Rhodes S., Vasilopoulou E., & Hutton P. (2018). Loneliness in Psychosis: A Meta-analytical Review. Schizophr Bull, 44(1), 114–125. 10.1093/schbul/sbx036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Le T. P., Cowan T., Schwartz E. K., Elvevag B., Holmlund T. B., Foltz P. W. et al. (2019). The importance of loneliness in psychotic-like symptoms: Data from three studies. Psychiatry Res, 282, 112625. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Russell D., Peplau L. A., & Cutrona C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol, 39(3), 472–480. 10.1037//0022-3514.39.3.472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gross G. M., Kwapil T. R., Raulin M. L., Silvia P. J., & Barrantes-Vidal N. (2018). The multidimensional schizotypy scale-brief: Scale development and psychometric properties. Psychiatry Res, 261, 7–13. 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.12.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Launay G., & Slade P. D. (1981). The measurement of hallucinatory predisposition in male and female prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(3), 221–234. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Badcock J. C., Shah S., Mackinnon A., Stain H. J., Galletly C., Jablensky A. et al. (2015). Loneliness in psychotic disorders and its association with cognitive function and symptom profile. Schizophr Res, 169(1–3), 268–273. 10.1016/j.schres.2015.10.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thomas M Olino

4 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-39171

Psychosis Proneness, Loneliness, and Hallucinations in Nonclinical Individuals

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lincoln,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I was fortunate to receive reviews from two experts in this area. I thank them for their attention to this manuscript. The reviewers identify that there are important contributions of the work. However, they also note some areas of the manuscript that could be clearer in presentation. Some of these may lead to additional presentation of analyses for clarity. These may best be accomplished through inclusion of bivariate correlations among study variables. Reviewers note that some questions about the inclusion/testing of mediation (rather than moderation); I think that it is also critical to refrain from language of mediation in light of the cross-sectional design. Reviewer 1 also noted areas of the conceptual foundation of the work that could be elaborated on in the introduction.

Beyond the issues noted by the Reviewers, I also wanted to highlight a need to describe magnitude of effects reported by previous studies using the White Christmas paradigm. The corresponding need is to qualify findings in light of the study’s ability to recover those effects. I am not asking for a post-hoc power analysis based on this study’s finding, but to identify the minimum effect that could have been found given the study design. Conversely, as the conclusions are written in a way that is “supporting the null hypothesis,” recent methods have been developed to show that associations are smaller than what would be a meaningful effect, such as using equivalence testing (e.g., Lakens, Scheek, & Isager, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that peer review at PLOS ONE is not double-blinded (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process).

For this reason, authors should include in the revised manuscript all the information that may have been removed for blind review, including names of the universities from which participants were recruited.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-39171

Title: Psychosis Proneness, Loneliness, and Hallucinations in Nonclinical Individuals

Introduction

This is an interesting manuscript on the relationships between psychosis proneness, loneliness, and auditory hallucinations in a nonclinical sample using an adaptation of the well-validated paradigm, White Christmas. The authors provide sound justification for investigating this question. In terms of findings, while the authors found that over half the sample reported at least one hallucination experience in response to the task, no correlations were observed between the number of hallucinations, schizotypy, and propensity to hallucinate. While the study is overall clearly written, further clarification regarding the statistical analyses are needed, particularly whether mediation was used. For example, the authors describe the aim of investigating whether loneliness mediated relationships, but it is unclear what types of mediation analyses were employed, if any. Overall, this manuscript is well-constructed and offers contributions to the field in this area. Please see major and minor issues noted below.

Major Issues

It would be useful to have a more in depth description of nonclinical psychosis and schizotypy earlier on for readers that may not be as familiar with experiences endorsed by this group.

The authors might consider discussing, in the limitations section perhaps, that the correlational approach to the study does not necessarily get at mechanism, but instead hints towards processes involved. The authors discuss unknown mechanistic understanding of these processes in the introduction and clarification that the analyses employed are not directly examining mechanism can more accurately help with interpreting correlational findings.

How did the authors consider and account for site differences between the two universities? Did you conduct any analyses to support combining the samples?

The authors might consider adding in statistical analyses to support the written phrase, “This song was better known to students in our pilot testing” described in the methods section.

The authors discuss statistical analyses generally, but it appears there is not a data analysis section describing which tests were employed. For example, the authors discuss examining mediation in the sample, but it is unclear how this was examined statistically (“we hypothesized that loneliness would mediate the relationship between the number of hallucinations and psychosis-proneness” pg. 5). Did the authors use mediation statistics? Along these lines, what type of log transformation did the authors use?

The inclusion of the limitation of utilizing a purely undergraduate sample should be discussed briefly.

Minor Issues

There are minor spelling and grammar mistakes throughout (e.g. pg. 4, I think you mean current study, also on page 4, a period I missing after the second sentence in the last paragraph, a comma missing in the last paragraph on pg. 3). Furthermore, in some places, the authors write psychotic like and psychotic-like; consistency in this can enhance readability.

Reviewer #2: The authors examined relations between loneliness, hallucinations, and schizotpy in a nonclinical sample of undergraduate students. The article is well-written and clear with an appropriate discussion of the null findings in the context of the study’s limitations. There are only few minor suggestions/questions for improvement of the manuscript:

1) Why did the authors hypothesize a mediation rather than a moderation model for the effect of loneliness on psychosis proneness and hallucinations? A justification for this hypothesis is needed.

2) The social desirability measure in the method section comes out of nowhere and there is no explanation for why it is included. It is also never referenced after the method section. The authors should remove this from the manuscript or provide a rationale for its inclusion and relevant findings.

3) The authors may want to discuss adapting the paradigm as a limitation and speculate on whether or not this could have influenced their findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0251753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251753.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Apr 2021

April 26, 2021

RE: PONE-D-20-39171

Dear Dr. Olino,

Thank you for your careful review and constructive comments provided on our manuscript “Psychosis Proneness, Loneliness, and Hallucinations in Nonclinical Individuals.” To further strengthen our submission, we have addressed each of the additional concerns raised, and we believe the review process has improved the overall quality of our submission. Additionally, we have looked at equivalence testing for this paper and have documented those results in response to your feedback below. We welcome any further discussion or questions of that method; it was new to us and interesting to learn about. Thank you for your time and efforts in considering our revised manuscript.

Comment from Editor

Beyond the issues noted by the Reviewers, I also wanted to highlight a need to describe magnitude of effects reported by previous studies using the White Christmas paradigm. The corresponding need is to qualify findings in light of the study’s ability to recover those effects. I am not asking for a post-hoc power analysis based on this study’s finding, but to identify the minimum effect that could have been found given the study design. Conversely, as the conclusions are written in a way that is “supporting the null hypothesis,” recent methods have been developed to show that associations are smaller than what would be a meaningful effect, such as using equivalence testing (e.g., Lakens, Scheek, & Isager, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963).

Thank you for this comment. We have gone back and calculated the effect sizes from previous papers, specifically van de Ven & Merckelbach (2003) and Merckelbach & van de Ven (2001). In Merckelbach & van de Ven (2001), 32 % of the people reported a hallucination, and they found a significant difference between those who heard the hallucinations and those who did not on the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale with a moderate effect size (d = 0.62). In van de Ven & Merckelbach (2003) they did not find a difference between groups on either the Schizotypal Personality Scale (d = .25) or the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale (d = .41). In looking at our data, with our sample size, we have 76% power to detect a moderate effect size, but only 20% power to detect a smaller effect.

In the article you reference (Lakens et al., 2018) they talk about picking the Smallest Effect Size of Interest (SESOI); they suggest starting with the “largest effect size that, when observed in the original study, would not have been statistically significant.” In this instance, the effect size d = .41 is the largest non-significant effect size. In using the Two One Sided T-tests (TOST) for correlations we find that our confidence interval does fall within the upper and lower bounds and thus is not significantly different from zero (Figure 1). At the same time, given that we would want the White Christmas paradigm to potentially be an indicator of a vulnerability to psychosis, we would likely want a larger effect in order for it to be clinically meaningful. Because we had previously not been familiar with equivalence testing, we have not included these results in our manuscript, but in deference to your comment we have stated in the discussion Though we failed to find evidence of an association that does not mean that no association exists.

Figure 1. Number of hallucinations correlated with schizotypy score. Our confidence interval falls within the equivalence bounds.

Reviewer #1

1. It would be useful to have a more in depth description of nonclinical psychosis and schizotypy earlier on for readers that may not be as familiar with experiences endorsed by this group.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now included a paragraph about schizotypy in the introduction to hopefully make this construct clearer to readers.

Schizotypy is a personality dimension that indicates a propensity to develop schizophrenia, and may reflect a psychosis phenotype (Van Os, Linscott, Myin-Germeys, Delespaul, & Krabbendam, 2009). Schizotypy has three dimensional factors which correspond with the positive, negative, and disorganized symptoms in schizophrenia (Nelson, Seal, Pantelis, & Phillips, 2013). Schizotypal characteristics include magical thinking, paranoia, unusual perceptual experiences, odd beliefs and behavior, disorganized speech, and social anhedonia. Schizophrenia spectrum disorders and schizotypy share commonalities across neuropsychological, social and environmental, and biological factors (Neal et al., 2013).

2. The authors might consider discussing, in the limitations section perhaps, that the correlational approach to the study does not necessarily get at mechanism, but instead hints towards processes involved. The authors discuss unknown mechanistic understanding of these processes in the introduction and clarification that the analyses employed are not directly examining mechanism can more accurately help with interpreting correlational findings.

Thank you for this suggestion; you’re right, we do not look at mechanisms. We have added in the discussion the following sentences:

An additional limitation is that the correlational nature of this study did not allow us to look at the mechanism by which the phenomenon may be occurring. Our analyses do not directly assess the mechanism.

3. How did the authors consider and account for site differences between the two universities? Did you conduct any analyses to support combining the samples?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have run tests comparing the two groups. There is no difference for age (p = .061), schizotypy total scores (p = .447), loneliness (p = .844), and propensity to hallucinate (p = .168). Nor was there a difference on the number of people who heard hallucinations through the white noise (p = .644).

4. The authors might consider adding in statistical analyses to support the written phrase, “This song was better known to students in our pilot testing” described in the methods section.

Thank you for this suggestion. We piloted the study with the undergraduate students in our lab at the time (n ~ 8), but unfortunately we did not collect data on these individuals.

5. The authors discuss statistical analyses generally, but it appears there is not a data analysis section describing which tests were employed. For example, the authors discuss examining mediation in the sample, but it is unclear how this was examined statistically (“we hypothesized that loneliness would mediate the relationship between the number of hallucinations and psychosis-proneness” pg. 5). Did the authors use mediation statistics? Along these lines, what type of log transformation did the authors use?

Thank you for this comment. We have now added a data analysis section that reads:

For this study we will first conduct correlation analyses assessing the relationships between number of hallucinations and both schizotypy and propensity to hallucinate. If a significant relationship is found between either the number of hallucinations and schizotypy or the number of hallucinations and propensity to hallucinate, we will conduct mediation analyses, testing loneliness as the mediator between these variables.

We have further clarified that mediation analyses were not conducted, because we did not observe a statistically significant relationship between number of hallucinations and either schizotypy or propensity to hallucinate. There was no relationship to mediate.

Additionally, we used a log10 for our log transformation, we have included this information in the results section, but not in the data analysis plan, as we did not a priori plan to do log transformations.

6. The inclusion of the limitation of utilizing a purely undergraduate sample should be discussed briefly.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following sentence to the discussion section.

We may also be limited by examining these phenomenon in a college student sample.

7. There are minor spelling and grammar mistakes throughout (e.g. pg. 4, I think you mean current study, also on page 4, a period I missing after the second sentence in the last paragraph, a comma missing in the last paragraph on pg. 3). Furthermore, in some places, the authors write psychotic like and psychotic-like; consistency in this can enhance readability.

Thank you for these notes. We have gone through a proofread the paper to correct for any grammatical errors and we have changed “psychotic like” to “psychotic-like” throughout the paper.

Reviewer #2

8. Why did the authors hypothesize a mediation rather than a moderation model for the effect of loneliness on psychosis proneness and hallucinations? A justification for this hypothesis is needed.

Thank you for this comment. We hypothesized a mediation because we thought that loneliness would explain the relationship between the two variables rather than have an effect on its strength or direction. This idea is based off of the social deafferentation hypothesis which suggests that lack of social input may lead to psychotic symptoms like hallucinations. We thought that loneliness, as a proxy for lack of social input, would explain why there was a relationship between hearing music through the white noise and the schizotypy scores. We did not end up running mediation analyses because we did not see a significant relationship between hallucinations and either schizotypy scores or the revised hallucination scale; thus there was no relationship to mediate.

9. The social desirability measure in the method section comes out of nowhere and there is no explanation for why it is included. It is also never referenced after the method section. The authors should remove this from the manuscript or provide a rationale for its inclusion and relevant findings.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed reference to the social desirability scale as we did not use this in our reported analyses.

10. The authors may want to discuss adapting the paradigm as a limitation and speculate on whether or not this could have influenced their findings.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following sentences to our discussion section.

We should note that we modified the original paradigm in two ways. First, we did not use the song White Christmas. Second, white noise can vary a great deal in its frequencies and intensities; we do not know what white noise was used in the original paradigms and it is possible their white noise differs from the white noise we used. However, we do not think these two modifications have an effect on our data, as we see approximately the same percentage of individuals reporting hallucinations in the white noise as with previous studies.

Again, thank you for your careful review and consideration of our manuscript. We truly believe the Reviewers’ suggestions have contributed to an improved product.

Sincerely,

Sarah Hope Lincoln, Ph.D.

Decision Letter 1

Thomas M Olino

3 May 2021

Psychosis Proneness, Loneliness, and Hallucinations in Nonclinical Individuals

PONE-D-20-39171R1

Dear Dr. Lincoln,

I reviewed your responses and revision and saw that you were fully responsive to the previous comments. I do not see a need to have the manuscript sent out for an additional review. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. 

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Thomas M Olino

20 May 2021

PONE-D-20-39171R1

Psychosis Proneness, Loneliness, and Hallucinations in Nonclinical Individuals

Dear Dr. Lincoln:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    The data are available in the Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/85yvr/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES