Individual Differences in the Executive Control of Attention, Memory, and Thought, and Their Associations with Schizotypy

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Michael J. Kane, Professor (Creator)
Thomas R. Kwapil, Associate Professor (Creator)
Paul Silvia, Professor (Creator)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site:

Abstract: Reports an error in "Individual differences in the executive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their associations with schizotypy" by Michael J. Kane, Matt E. Meier, Bridget A. Smeekens, Georgina M. Gross, Charlotte A. Chun, Paul J. Silvia and Thomas R. Kwapil (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2016[Aug], Vol 145[8], 1017-1048). There were errors in Table 3 and Table 7 (these transcription errors were limited to descriptive statistics in the Tables and did not affect any inferential statistics). In Table 3, the ARRO-TUT and LETT-TUT variables had incorrect values for Mean [95% CI], SD, Skew, Kurtosis, and N. In Table 7, the same values (plus Min and Max) were incorrect for the SEM-SART variable. The correct values for these measures are presented in the correction (the values for Min and Max were correct as set in Table 3, but are repeated below for clarity). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2016-29680-001.) 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 2 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.

Additional Information

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1017-1048
Language: English
Date: 2016
inhibition, schizotypy, executive attention, mind wandering, working memory capacity

Email this document to