PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE The impact of family environment on self- esteem and symptoms in early psychosis Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués1☯, Manel Monsonet ID1☯, Thomas R. Kwapil2, Neus Barrantes- Vidal ID1,3,4* 1 Departament de Psicologia Clı́nica i de la Salut, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States of America, 3 Sant Pere Claver- Fundació Sanitària, Barcelona, Spain, 4 Centre for Biomedical Research on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Madrid, Spain a1111111111 ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. a1111111111 * neus.barrantes@uab.cat a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Expressed emotion (EE) and self-esteem (SE) have been implicated in the onset and devel- opment of paranoia and positive symptoms of psychosis. However, the impact of EE on OPEN ACCESS patients’ SE and ultimately on symptoms in the early stages of psychosis is still not fully understood. The main objectives of this study were to examine whether: (1) patients’ SE Citation: Hinojosa-Marqués L, Monsonet M, Kwapil TR, Barrantes-Vidal N (2021) The impact of mediated the effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ positive symptoms and paranoia; (2) family environment on self-esteem and symptoms patients’ perceived EE mediated the effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ SE; (3) patients’ SE in early psychosis. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0249721. mediated between patients’ perceived EE and patients’ symptomatology; and (4) patients’ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 perceived EE and patients’ SE serially mediated the effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ posi- Editor: Therese van Amelsvoort, Maastricht tive symptoms and paranoia. Incipient psychosis patients (at-risk mental states and first-epi- University, NETHERLANDS sode of psychosis) and their respective relatives completed measures of EE, SE, and Received: October 14, 2020 symptoms. Findings indicated that: (1) patients’ perceived EE mediated the link between rel- Accepted: March 23, 2021 atives’ EE and patients’ negative, but not positive, SE; (2) patients’ negative SE mediated Published: April 5, 2021 the effect of patients’ perceived EE on positive symptoms and paranoia; (3) the association of relatives’ EE with positive symptoms and paranoia was serially mediated by an increased Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review level of patients’ perceived EE leading to increases in negative SE; (4) high levels of process; therefore, we enable the publication of patients’ distress moderated the effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms through patients’ per- all of the content of peer review and author ceived EE and negative SE. Findings emphasize that patients’ SE is relevant for under- responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: standing how microsocial environmental factors impact formation and expression of positive https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 symptoms and paranoia in early psychosis. They suggest that broader interventions for Copyright: © 2021 Hinojosa-Marqués et al. This is patients and their relatives aiming at improving family dynamics might also improve patients’ an open access article distributed under the terms negative SE and symptoms. of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: The authors of the present study confirm that some access Introduction restrictions apply to the data underlying the findings. The consent form that participants signed Cognitive models of psychosis indicate that low self-esteem (SE) is crucial in the development before participating in the study, approved by the and persistence of positive symptoms [1–3]. Recent research has demonstrated that low self- PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 1 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Ethics Committee of the Unió Catalana d’Hospitals esteem is related to paranoia and positive symptoms across different stages of the psychosis (Comitè d’Ètica d’Investigació Clı́nica (CEIC); continuum [4–6]. Although cognitive models of psychosis propose a central role for cognitive/ number 09-40) and by the Ethics Committee of the emotional processes as proximal factors to the development of positive symptoms, the influ- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Comissió d’Ètica en l’Experimentació Animal i Humana ence of environmental factors on the origins and maintenance of symptoms is also postulated. (CEEAH); number 2679) imposes restrictions for Specifically, Garety et al. [2] indicated that negative or unsupportive family environments making the data publicly available. Participants might contribute to the development of negative self-beliefs, which in turn may negatively agreed for all the data collected to be available to impact patients’ clinical outcomes. the members of the research group Person- Expressed emotion (EE) in psychiatry [7] is a measure of family emotional climate used to Environment Interaction in Psychopathology led by Prof. Neus Barrantes-Vidal (Address: Departament describe relatives’ attitudes towards a family member with a mental disorder. The presence of de Psicologia Clı́nica i de la Salut, Facultat de high-EE attitudes [i.e., criticism and emotional over-involvement (EOI)] in families is related Psicologia, Edifici B, Universitat Autònoma de with poorer clinical outcome in chronic [8–10], first-episode of psychosis [11], and at-risk for Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; psychosis patients [12]. However, there is still debate about the mechanisms linking relatives’ telephone: +34 93 5813864; email: neus. EE and patients’ symptoms. One of the most supported hypotheses is that patients’ high barrantes@uab.cat). Data available on request. arousal states (e.g., anxiety and/or depression) may act as common pathway mediating the Requests should be addressed to the contact details provided above or to the Ethics Committee effects of environmental stress (e.g., EE) upon psychotic vulnerability to increase risk of symp- of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona toms [e.g., 13] and exacerbate existing symptoms [14–16]. Moreover, following Garety et al. (Comissió d’Ètica en l’Experimentació Animal i [2], empirical studies have also highlighted the role of patients’ self-esteem as a psychological Humana, Address: Plaça Acadèmica, Rectorat, mechanism by which family negative attitudes impact psychotic symptom expression. Edifici A, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barrowclough et al. [17] showed that the impact of relatives’ criticism on schizophrenia 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; telephone: +34 93 5813578; email: oh.ceea@uab.cat). patients’ negative SE was mediated by its association with patients’ reports of negative evalua- tion by relatives. Furthermore, the association between relatives’ criticism and patients’ posi- Funding: Authors are supported by the Spanish tive symptoms was mediated by its impact on patients’ negative SE. In light of these findings, a Ministerio de Economı́a y Competitividad (PSI2017-87512-C2-01) and the Comissionat per a recent cognitive model of paranoid delusions proposed by Kesting and Lincoln [4] explicitly Universitats i Recerca of Generalitat de Catalunya incorporated the potential influence of negative family environment on patients’ self-esteem (2017SGR1612). N. Barrantes-Vidal is supported and ultimately on the origins and course of paranoia. Thus, they conceptualized that self- by the Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis esteem has a mediating role in the link between adverse interpersonal experiences and para- Avançats (ICREA) Academia Award and the Centro noid delusions. Empirical studies have supported the expansion of cognitive models of positive de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud symptoms to embrace interpersonal components [e.g., 18] and pointed to the mediating role Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. The funders had no role in study of SE in the link between negative family environment and patients’ symptoms [e.g., 19]. Nev- design, data collection and analysis, decision to ertheless, the relationship between family negative attitudes (i.e., EE) and patients’ SE in the publish, or preparation of the manuscript. prodrome and early psychosis has not been explored. Similarly, no previous early psychosis Competing interests: The authors have declared studies have directly considered the possible mediating role of patients’ SE dimensions in the that no competing interests exist. link between EE attitudes and psychotic symptoms. Given that early psychosis is probably the stage when these mechanisms would have a crucial role in exacerbating symptom onset and/or maintenance, the present study aimed to address this important gap in the literature. Likewise, family positive attitudes (e.g., warmth, positive comments) are related with patients’ symptomatic/functional improvement [20–22], and also with higher levels of positive self-evaluation and SE [17,23]. However, no previous studies have investigated the possible contribution of family positive attitudes (e.g., warmth) on patients’ SE, and ultimately on patients’ clinical outcome, either in chronic or incipient psychosis. Exploring the putative impact of the interplay between family environment and SE on the development of positive symptoms and paranoia in the early stages of psychosis should pro- vide clearer information than that obtained at more developed stages of the illness, by avoiding many of the confounding effects characteristic of chronic psychosis [24]. Thus, using and com- paring at-risk mental state (ARMS) and first-episode psychosis (FEP) participants should improve our ability to distinguish etiologically relevant onset mechanisms from consequences of psychotic disorders. ARMS individuals are predominately characterized by being young help-seeking individuals who experience attenuated positive psychotic symptoms that not reach threshold levels of psychosis. The transition risk to full-blown psychosis is around 22% PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 2 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms at 3 years [25]; being severity of attenuated positive and negative symptoms as well as low func- tioning the most relevant factors associated with an increased risk [26]. The first goal of the present study was to explore in a sample of patients with ARMS and FEP and their respective relatives whether patients’ SE dimensions (positive and negative SE) mediated the effect of relatives’ EE dimensions (criticism and EOI) on patients’ symptoms (positive symptoms and paranoia) (Fig 1A). We predicted that patients’ negative SE would mediate the association between relatives’ EE dimensions and patients’ symptoms. In the sec- ond goal, we tested the Barrowclough’s model [17] in an early psychosis sample (patients with ARMS and FEP) by investigating the mediating role of patients’ perceived EE (perceived Fig 1. Conceptual mediation models. (A) Hypothesized indirect effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ symptoms via patients’ SE. Conceptual multiple mediation model in which is observed the hypothesized indirect effect of relatives’ EE dimensions on patients’ positive symptoms and paranoia via patients’ SE dimensions. (B) Hypothesized indirect effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ SE via patients’ perceived EE. Conceptual simple mediation model in which is observed the hypothesized indirect effect of relatives’ EE dimensions on patients’ SE dimensions via patients’ perceived EE (perceived criticism and perceived EOI). (C) Hypothesized indirect effect of patients’ perceived EE on patients’ symptoms via patients’ SE. Conceptual multiple mediation model in which is observed the hypothesized indirect effect of patients’ perceived EE on patients’ positive symptoms and paranoia via patients’ SE dimensions. (D) Hypothesized indirect effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ symptoms via patients’ perceived EE and patients’ SE. Conceptual serial mediation model in which is observed the hypothesized indirect effects of relatives’ EE on patients’ positive symptoms and paranoia via patients’ perceived EE and patients’ self-esteem (SE) dimensions. (E) The moderating effect of patients’ distress. Conceptual moderated serial mediation model in which the indirect effect of relatives’ EE on patients’ positive symptoms and paranoia via patients’ perceived EE and patients’ self-esteem (SE) dimensions is moderated by patients’ distress variables (at M2 to Y path). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.g001 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 3 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms criticism and EOI) between relatives’ reports of EE and patients’ SE dimensions (Fig 1B). It was expected that patients’ perceived EE would mediate the impact of relatives’ EE on patients’ negative SE. As patients’ perceptions of their relatives’ EE have been suggested to be more powerful predictors of outcome than relatives’ EE ratings [e.g., 27–29], the third goal was to test the mediating effect of patients’ SE dimensions between patients’ perceived EE (perceived criticism, EOI and warmth) and symptoms (Fig 1C). We hypothesized that patients’ negative SE would mediate the relationship between patients’ perceived criticism and EOI with symp- toms. Conversely, patients’ positive SE was expected to mediate the inverse association between patients’ perceived warmth and symptoms. In the fourth goal, a comprehensive model tested the mediating role of patients’ perceived EE and patients’ negative SE (in a serial causal order) in the link between relatives’ EE dimensions and patients’ symptoms (Fig 1D). Finally, as high distress states have been also suggested as a mechanism by which relatives’ EE impacts on symptom exacerbation, the fifth goal investigated whether patients’ distress moder- ated the effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms through patients’ perceived EE and negative SE (Fig 1E). In addition, we explored whether these models differed across ARMS and FEP stages, as some mechanisms might be more evident and/or relevant in the at-risk or onset psychosis states. Materials and methods Participants and procedure The present study is embedded in a larger longitudinal study carried out in four Mental Health Centers of Barcelona (Spain) conducting the Sant Pere Claver- Early Psychosis Program [30]. Early psychosis patients (ARMS and FEP participants) and their respective relatives were included. ARMS criteria were established based on the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS) [31]. The CAARMS identifies 3 different at-risk mental states groups: the vulnerability group, the APS group, and the BLIPS group. The vulnerability group identifies those individuals with a combination of a trait risk factor and a significant deteriora- tion in social and occupational functioning. The APS group includes those individuals with attenuated psychotic symptoms that not reach threshold levels of psychosis. Finally, the BLIPS group identifies individuals with brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms that resolved spontaneously without antipsychotic medication. All the ARMS patients were help-seeking individuals, but none of the ARMS patients met DSM-IV-TR criteria [32] for any psychotic disorder or affective disorder with psychotic symptoms. FEP patients met DSM-IV-TR criteria [32] for any psychotic disorder or affective disorder with psychotic symptoms and presented a first-episode of psychosis within the past two years. Mean duration of illness was 11 months (SD = 8.3), 12 months (SD = 8.1) and 12 months (SD = 7.4) for Sample 1, Sample 2 and Sample 3, respectively. However, 2 patients reached a length of 29 months in Sample 1 and 1 patient reached a length of 29 months in Samples 2 and 3. Patient’s inclusion criteria were age between 14 and 40 years old and IQ � 75. Exclusion criteria for patients were evidence of organically based psychosis and any previous psychotic episode that involved pharmacotherapy. Relatives were referred to the study by their respective affected family members (i.e., early psychosis patients). Patients were informed of the relatives’ study and asked to name the person to whom they have a significant/close relationship. After getting the consent of the patient, the relative was contacted and was asked to participate into the study. Thus, the relatives recruited were those who had most regular contact and/or the most significant relationship with the patient. All participants provided written informed consent to participate and completed the assessment protocol within a maximum of 4 weeks. Written informed consent was also obtained from parents of the minors included in the study. The project was developed in PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 4 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Hel- sinki). Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Unió Catalana d’Hospitals (ref. 09–40) and by the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ref. 2679). All the interviews were conducted by experienced clinical psychologists. The time gap between patients and relatives’ assessments was minimal (range of 3 to 15 days). Measures Relatives’ EE was measured with the Family Questionnaire (FQ) [33], which consists of 20 items equally distributed into two subscales (EOI and criticism). Patients’ perceptions of their relatives’ EE were measured with the Brief Dyadic Scale of Expressed Emotion (BDSEE) [34], which has three subscales: ‘perceived criticism’, ‘perceived EOI’, and ‘perceived warmth’. Self-esteem was assessed with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) [35], which has five positively worded items and five negatively worded items. A high total score is indicative of high global self-esteem. Consistent with recent recommendations [17,36,37], we used positive and negative SE dimensional scores. To that end, a principal component analysis (Promax rotation) of the RSES in each the ARMS, FEP, and relatives’ samples was conducted (i.e., Sam- ple 1: n = 77; Sample 2: n = 58; Sample 3: n = 93). It revealed a two-factor solution with a large inverse correlation [(Sample 1: r = -0.58); (Sample 2: r = -0.55); (Sample 3: r = -0.60)]. One fac- tor represented positive self-esteem and the other negative self-esteem, explaining 48.24% and 36.09% (Sample 1), 48.92% and 34.13% (Sample 2), 45.84% and 37.53% (Sample 3) of the vari- ance, respectively. Factor scores coefficients were computed for positive and negative trait self- esteem. Patients’ positive symptoms were assessed with the positive subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [38] including the following items: “delusions” (item P1), “conceptual disorganization” (item P2), “hallucinatory behavior” (item P3), “excitement” (item P4), “grandiosity” (item P5), “suspiciousness/persecution” (item P6) and “hostility” (item P7). Paranoia was measured with the “suspiciousness/persecution” item from the PANSS (item P6). Patient distress was examined from three different perspectives, given that there have been theoretical claims regarding differential contributions of various types of negative emotions [39,40] “pure” general depression, “pure” anxiety, and a mixture of negative affect states. A general measure of depression was derived from a principal component analysis (PCA) of the following measures: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [41], Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) [42] and the “depression” item from the PANSS (item G6). S1 Table shows the correlations among these measures and the description of the PCA can be found below it. A general mea- sure of negative affect (NA) was derived from a PCA of the following scales: BDI [41], CDS [42], and the “Depression/Anxiety” factor from the PANSS- Five Factors [43], which encom- passes a wide variety of affective-related symptoms. S2 Table displays correlations among these measures and the description of the PCA can be found below it. Anxiety was measured with the “anxiety” item from the PANSS (item G2). Statistical analysis Mediation analyses were performed using PROCESS v2.16 [44]. Parallel multiple mediation analyses (model 4; model as a parameter in the PROCESS function) were conducted to exam- ine: (1) the indirect effect of relatives’ EE dimensions on symptoms via patients’ SE dimensions (goal 1); (2) the indirect effect of patients’ perceived EE on symptoms via patients’ SE dimen- sions (goal 3). For each model, the two SE dimensions were entered simultaneously as media- tors. Simple mediation analyses (model 4) were conducted to examine the indirect effect of PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 5 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms relatives’ EE dimensions on patients’ SE dimensions via patients’ perceived EE (goal 2). Moder- ated mediation analyses (model 59) were performed to explore the indirect effects referred above across ARMS and FEP groups. Moreover, serial mediation analyses (model 6) were used to examine the indirect effect of relatives’ EE dimensions on symptoms via, first, patients’ per- ceived EE (perceived criticism and EOI), and second, patients’ negative SE (goal 4). In the serial analysis, mediators are assumed to have a direct effect on each other [44], and the inde- pendent variable (relatives’ EE dimensions) is assumed to influence mediators (patients’ per- ceived EE and patients’ negative SE) in a serial way that ultimately influences the dependent variable (patients’ symptoms). Four different serial mediation models (SMM) were explored: [(SMM1: Relatives’ Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative SE➔ Positive Symptoms); (SMM2: Relatives Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative SE➔ Paranoia); (SMM3: Rela- tives’ EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Positive Symptoms); (SMM4: Relatives EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Paranoia)]. Finally, PROCESS v3.3 [45] was used to perform the moderated serial mediation analyses. These analyses investigated whether the serial medi- ated model described above was moderated by: (1) patients’ distress variables (goal 5) and (2) diagnostic group category (ARMS/FEP) (Model 92). The moderating role of patients’ distress variables in the serial mediation models (SMM) was examined by model 87 which explored the effect of the moderator from path M2 (patients’ negative SE) to Y (symptoms). Fig 1 illustrates all the models referred above. The 95% bias-cor- rected confidence intervals were generated using bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples. Indi- rect effects were considered significant when the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals did not include zero. Results Patients and relatives’ socio-demographic characteristics as well as descriptive data for all patients and relatives’ measures are presented in S3 and S4 Tables, respectively. Depending on study goals, the samples examined differed (e.g., only patients or patient-relative dyads); there- fore, there are different numbers of participants in the analyses. For goals examining patient-rel- ative dyads (1, 2, 4 and 5), it was required that the examined measures had been responded by both members of the dyad. Hence, goal 1 included 77 patients (50 ARMS and 27 FEP; Sample 1) and their respective relatives, whereas Goals 2, 4 and 5 included 58 patients (37 ARMS and 21 FEP; Sample 2) and their respective relatives. For goals examining only patients (i.e., goal 3), 93 early psychosis patients (60 ARMS and 33 FEP; Sample 3) were included. Please note that a detailed participant flowchart is available in S1 Fig. As depicted in S1 Fig, there was a total sam- ple of 122 relatives (n = 92 key relatives and n = 30 second closest relatives) of early psychosis patients included at baseline. Taking into account that the present study focused on examining patient-relative dyads, only key relatives (n = 92) were eligible as potential subjects of study. In samples of patient-relative dyads, relatives were mainly female [77.9% (Sample 1); 82.8% (Sam- ple 2)], particularly patient’s mothers [75.3% (Sample 1); 81% (Sample 2)]. Mean age of the rela- tives was 50.71 years old (S.D = 10.8) and 50.69 years old (SD = 11.3) in Sample 1 and 2, respectively. Patients were predominantly male in all samples [70.1% (Sample 1); 72.4% (Sample 2); 68.8% (Sample 3)]. The mean age of the patients was 21.96 years old (S.D = 4.6), 22.05 years old (SD = 4.6) and 22.28 years old (SD = 4.4) in Samples 1, 2 and 3, respectively (please see S3 Table for details about relatives’ and patients’ socio-demographic characteristics). Indirect effects of relatives’ EE on symptoms via SE Pearson’s correlations of relatives’ EE and symptoms, and of patients’ SE with relatives’ EE and patients’ symptoms are presented in S5 and S6 Tables, respectively. Table 1 displays the results PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 6 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Table 1. Mediation analyses examining the indirect effects of relatives’ EE on symptoms via positive and negative SE (Sample 1; n = 77). IV = Relatives’ Criticism IV = Relatives’ EOI 95% Bias-corrected 95% Bias-corrected CI CI Raw Parameter Estimate SE Lower Upper Raw Parameter Estimate SE Lower Upper Positive symptoms (PANSS) Total Effect 0.065 0.060 -0.056 0.185 0.022 0.068 -0.113 0.156 Direct Effect 0.064 0.063 -0.061 0.189 0.025 0.067 -0.110 0.159 Total Indirect Effect 0.000 0.025 -0.050 0.050 -0.003 0.017 -0.045 0.025 Indirect Effect via Positive SE -0.013 0.024 -0.075 0.025 -0.002 0.011 -0.042 0.011 Indirect Effect via Negative SE 0.013 0.017 -0.007 0.071 -0.001 0.015 -0.039 0.025 Paranoia (PANSS) Total Effect 0.006 0.021 -0.034 0.047 -0.009 0.023 -0.055 0.036 Direct Effect 0.000 0.021 -0.041 0.042 -0.009 0.022 -0.054 0.035 Total Indirect Effect 0.006 0.009 -0.009 0.026 -0.000 0.007 -0.015 0.013 Indirect Effect via Positive SE 0.001 0.008 -0.014 0.019 0.000 0.004 -0.006 0.011 Indirect Effect via Negative SE 0.005 0.006 -0.003 0.026 -0.000 0.006 -0.016 0.010 Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t001 of the parallel multiple mediation analyses using relatives’ criticism and EOI as independent variables. Two models were tested (one for positive symptoms and one for paranoia) for each of the multiple mediator models. Contrary to our hypotheses, the indirect effect of relatives’ criticism on positive symptoms and/or paranoia via SE dimensions was not significant. Like- wise, there were no significant indirect effects of relatives’ EOI via SE dimensions on positive symptoms and/or paranoia. Moderated mediation analyses revealed that group (ARMS vs. FEP) did not moderate any of these effects (S7 Table). Indirect effects of relatives’ EE on SE via perceived EE The correlation coefficients between relatives’ EE and SE as well as of perceived EE with rela- tives’ EE and symptoms are in S8 and S9 Tables, respectively. The first simple mediation mod- els tested how relatives’ criticism was related with SE dimensions via its effect on perceived criticism. The second mediation analyses examined whether relatives’ EOI was related with SE dimensions via its effect on perceived EOI (Table 2). Two models were tested (for negative SE and for positive SE) for each mediator model. As expected, there was a significant indirect effect of relatives’ criticism on negative SE (but not on positive SE) via perceived criticism. Likewise, relatives’ EOI was related with negative, but not positive, SE indirectly through per- ceived EOI. However, the direct effect of relatives’ criticism and relatives’ EOI on negative SE (controlling for the mediator) was nonsignificant. Results of the moderated mediation analyses examining the effect of group revealed that the effect of relatives’ criticism on negative SE was mediated by perceived criticism in FEP (condi- tional IE = 0.0293, SE = 0.0207, LLCI = 0.0011, ULCI = 0.0852) but not in ARMS participants (conditional IE = 0.0171, SE = 0.0123, LLCI = -0.0305, ULCI = 0.0625). However, the condi- tional IE was not significantly different across the two groups [Index of moderated mediation (IMM) = 0.0122, SE = 0.0241, LLCI = -0.0305, ULCI = 0.0625)]. Conversely, the effect of rela- tives’ EOI on negative SE was mediated by perceived EOI in ARMS (conditional IE = 0.0347, SE = 0.0165, LLCI = 0.0092, ULCI = 0.0749) but not in FEP individuals (conditional IE = 0.0035, SE = 0.0242, LLCI = -0.0494, ULCI = 0.0469). Nevertheless, the conditional IE PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 7 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Table 2. Mediation analyses examining the indirect effects of relatives’ EE on SE via perceived EE (Sample 2; n = 58). 95% Bias-corrected Confidence Interval Raw Parameter Estimate SE Lower Upper IV = Relatives’ Criticism Negative SE (RSES) Total Effect 0.026 0.021 -0.016 0.069 Direct Effect 0.005 0.022 -0.040 0.049 � Indirect Effect via Perceived Criticism 0.022 0.009 0.006 0.045 Positive SE (RSES) Total Effect -0.039 0.021 -0.081 0.003 Direct Effect -0.032 0.023 -0.078 0.014 Indirect Effect via Perceived Criticism -0.007 0.011 -0,028 0.014 IV = Relatives’ EOI Negative SE (RSES) Total Effect -0.001 0.023 -0.046 0.045 Direct Effect -0.024 0.021 -0.066 0.018 Indirect Effect via Perceived EOI 0.024� 0.012 0.003 0.052 Positive SE (RSES) Total Effect -0.005 0.023 -0.050 0.040 Direct Effect 0.009 0.023 -0.036 0.055 Indirect Effect via Perceived EOI -0.015 0.013 -0.048 -0.000 Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. � 95% Confidence Interval does not include zero. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t002 was not significantly different across the two groups (IMM = -0.0311, SE = 0.0294, LLCI = -0.0946, ULCI = 0.0196). Indirect effects of perceived EE on symptoms via SE Pearson’s correlations between perceived EE and symptoms as well as among SE, perceived EE and symptoms are in S10 and S11 Tables, respectively. The parallel multiple mediation analy- ses using perceived criticism, EOI, and warmth as independent variables are in Table 3. Two models were tested (for positive symptoms and paranoia) for each of the multiple mediator models. Results revealed that there was a significant indirect effect of perceived criticism as well as of perceived EOI on both positive symptoms and paranoia via negative SE, but not via positive SE, as expected. Note that the direct relationship of perceived criticism with positive symptoms and paranoia no longer remained significant when the indirect pathway through patients’ negative SE was included. Finally, in contrast to our hypotheses, the indirect effect of perceived warmth on positive symptoms and/or paranoia via SE dimensions was not significant. Moderated mediation analyses revealed that the effect of perceived criticism on positive symptoms was mediated by both SE dimensions (negative SE and positive SE) in FEP patients, but not in ARMS patients (Table 4). The magnitude of the conditional IE differed significantly between the two groups, indicating that the indirect effect of perceived criticism on positive symptoms through both SE dimensions was significantly different between ARMS and FEP patients. Similarly, the effect of perceived criticism on paranoia was mediated by negative SE in FEP patients, but not in ARMS. The magnitude of the conditional IE was significantly dif- ferent across the two groups. Group did not moderate the indirect effect of perceived EOI on PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 8 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Table 3. Mediation analyses examining the indirect effects of perceived EE on symptoms via positive and negative SE (Sample 3; n = 93). IV = Perceived criticism IV = Perceived EOI IV = Perceived warmth 95% Bias- 95% Bias- 95% Bias- corrected CI corrected CI corrected CI Raw Parameter SE Lower Upper Raw Parameter SE Lower Upper Raw Parameter SE Lower Upper Estimate Estimate Estimate Positive symptoms (PANSS) Total Effect 0.076� 0.038 0.001 0.150 0.049 0.028 -0.007 0.106 -0.032 0.042 -0.115 0.051 Direct Effect 0.063 0.039 -0.013 0.140 0.037 0.029 -0.021 0.095 -0.022 0.042 -0.106 0.061 Total Indirect Effect 0.012 0.013 -0.009 0.044 0.013 0.011 -0.005 0.038 -0.009 0.014 -0.043 0.013 Indirect Effect via -0.011 0.013 -0.049 0.005 -0.008 0.010 -0.039 0.005 0.011 0.014 -0.007 0.052 Positive SE Indirect Effect via 0.023� 0.015 0.001 0.065 0.020� 0.013 0.001 0.052 -0.020 0.018 -0.070 0.001 Negative SE Paranoia (PANSS) Total Effect 0.028� 0.012 0.005 0.052 0.006 0.009 -0.012 0.025 -0.029� 0.013 -0.056 -0.004 Direct Effect 0.020 0.012 -0.004 0.044 -0.002 0.009 -0.021 0.016 -0.024 0.013 -0.049 0.002 Total Indirect Effect 0.008� 0.005 0.000 0.021 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.019 -0.006 0.005 -0.019 0.003 Indirect Effect via -0.001 0.004 -0.012 0.005 -0.001 0.003 -0.008 0.005 0.002 0.005 -0.005 0.014 Positive SE Indirect Effect via 0.010� 0.006 0.001 0.026 0.009� 0.005 0.002 0.022 -0.008 0.006 -0.025 0.001 Negative SE Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. � 95% Confidence Interval does not include zero-. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t003 positive symptoms via SE. However, the effect of perceived EOI on paranoia was mediated by negative SE in FEP but not in ARMS patients. In this case, the conditional IE did not differ between ARMS and FEP patients. As mentioned previously, no significant indirect effects were observed for the model testing the effects of perceived warmth on positive symptoms and/or paranoia via SE dimensions. However, when the effect of the moderator was examined, results revealed that the effect of perceived warmth on both positive symptoms and paranoia was mediated by positive SE in FEP but not in ARMS, and the magnitude of the conditional IE was significantly different across the two groups. Serial Mediation Models (SMM) As illustrated in Fig 1D, a series of serial multiple mediation models were explored using per- ceived EE factors and negative SE as mediators. In serial mediation, mediators are assumed to have a direct effect on each other [44], and the independent variable (relatives’ criticism/EOI) is assumed to influence mediators in a serial way that ultimately influences the dependent vari- able. Results revealed four significant indirect pathways (Table 5). First, there were two signifi- cant indirect pathways from relatives’ criticism to positive symptoms (SMM1) and paranoia (SMM2) through perceived criticism and negative SE. This means that increased relatives’ crit- icism increases perceived criticism that in turn increases negative SE and results in increased positive symptoms and paranoia. Second, there were two significant indirect pathways from relatives’ EOI to positive symptoms (SMM3) and paranoia (SMM4) through perceived EOI and negative SE. Thus, relatives’ EOI was serially associated to perceived EOI and negative SE, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 9 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Table 4. Conditional indirect effects of perceived EE on symptoms through positive and negative SE (Sample 3; n = 93). Conditional indirect effects at different values of the moderator Index of moderated mediation 95% Bias- 95% Bias- corrected CI corrected CI Predictor Outcome Mediator Moderator Level Raw Parameter Estimate SE Lower Upper Index SE Lower Upper Perceived Criticism Positive symptoms Positive SE Group ARMS 0.001 0.010 -0.013 0.032 -0.088� 0.072 -0.289 -0.001 FEP -0.087� 0.071 -0.291 -0.002 Negative SE Group ARMS 0.004 0.011 -0.007 0.048 0.076� 0.047 0.006 0.208 � FEP 0.080 0.045 0.014 0.208 Perceived Criticism Paranoia Positive SE Group ARMS 0.002 0.005 -0.003 0.020 -0.026 0.024 -0.089 0.004 FEP -0.024 0.024 -0.088 0.004 Negative SE Group ARMS 0.002 0.004 -0.003 0.018 0.034� 0.018 0.007 0.081 � FEP 0.036 0.017 0.010 0.081 Perceived EOI Positive symptoms Positive SE Group ARMS 0.002 0.011 -0.014 0.035 -0.035 0.037 -0.128 0.008 FEP -0.033 0.035 -0.128 0.001 Negative SE Group ARMS 0.004 0.013 -0.016 0.040 0.035 0.035 -0.015 0.125 FEP 0.039 0.033 -0.000 0.129 Perceived EOI Paranoia Positive SE Group ARMS 0.003 0.005 -0.002 0.019 -0.013 0.013 -0.044 0.002 FEP -0.010 0.012 -0.042 0.001 Negative SE Group ARMS 0.003 0.006 -0.005 0.019 0.014 0.013 -0.008 0.043 FEP 0.017� 0.012 0.001 0.046 Perceived Warmth Positive symptoms Positive SE Group ARMS -0.001 0.016 -0.051 0.020 0.081� 0.066 0.000 0.278 � FEP 0.079 0.064 0.006 0.287 Negative SE Group ARMS -0.006 0.016 -0.067 0.009 -0.049 0.051 -0.170 0.031 FEP -0.056 0.048 -0.174 0.013 Perceived Warmth Paranoia Positive SE Group ARMS -0.002 0.006 -0.027 0.004 0.030� 0.024 0.001 0.101 FEP 0.027� 0.023 0.001 0.099 Negative SE Group ARMS -0.002 0.006 -0.023 0.004 -0.021 0.018 -0.061 0.013 FEP -0.023 0.018 -0.064 0.007 Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. a Perceived Criticism, Perceived EOI, Perceived Warmth (X-Independent variable) and Diagnostic Category (W-moderator) were mean centered prior to analyses. � 95% Confidence Interval does not include zero. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t004 resulting in increased positive symptoms and paranoia. Moderated serial mediation analyses indicated that group (ARMS, FEP) did not moderate any of these effects (S12 Table). Table 5. Indirect effects for the paths on the Serial Mediation Models (SMMs) (Sample 2; n = 58). 95% Bias-corrected Confidence Interval Raw Parameter Estimate SE Lower Upper SMM1: Relatives’ Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative SE➔ Positive Symptoms 0.019� 0.014 0.002 0.062 SMM2: Relatives Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative SE➔ Paranoia 0.008� 0.005 0.001 0.025 SMM3: Relatives’ EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Positive Symptoms 0.021� 0.015 0.001 0.067 � SMM4: Relatives EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Paranoia 0.010 0.007 0.001 0.029 Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. � 95% Confidence Interval does not include zero. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t005 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 10 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms The role of patients’ distress in moderating the effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms via perceived EE and negative SE As shown in Table 6, findings indicated that high levels of depressive and NA symptoms (but not anxiety symptoms) moderated: (1) the indirect effect of relatives’ criticism on positive symptoms through perceived criticism and negative SE (SMM1), and (2) the indirect effect of relatives’ EOI on positive symptoms through perceived EOI and negative SE (SMM3). These results suggested that the effect of relatives’ criticism/EOI on positive symptoms via perceived criticism/EOI and negative SE is observed when depressive and NA symptoms are high (1 SD above the mean) but not low (1SD below the mean). Furthermore, the magnitude of the condi- tional IE (as indicated by the IMM) differed between high and low levels of both depressive and NA symptoms. This provided further evidence that the above-mentioned indirect effects were significantly different between those individuals who had high depressive/NA symptoms and those who had low depressive/NA symptoms. Table 6. Conditional indirect effects of relatives’ EE on symptoms through perceived EE (M1) and negative SE (M2) (Sample 2; n = 58). Conditional indirect effects at different values of the moderator Index of moderated mediation 95% Bias- 95% Bias- corrected CI corrected CI Moderator Level Raw Parameter SE Lower Upper Index SE Lower Upper Estimate SMM1: Relatives’ Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative Depression Low -0.006 0.013 -0.029 0.025 0.023� 0.013 0.002 0.053 SE➔ Positive Symptoms High 0.039 � 0.025 0.004 0.099 Negative Low -0.006 0.013 -0.029 0.025 0.022� 0.013 0.002 0.052 Affect High 0.038 � 0.025 0.004 0.099 Anxiety Low 0.011 0.018 -0.024 0.048 0.006 0.008 -0.008 0.025 High 0.024 0.017 -0.002 0.064 SMM2: Relatives Criticism➔ Perceived Criticism➔ Negative Depression Low 0.000 0.005 -0.009 0.012 0.006 0.005 -0.001 0.017 SE➔ Paranoia High 0.012 0.009 -0.000 0.034 Negative Low -0000 0.005 -0.009 0.011 0.006 0.005 -0.001 0.018 Affect High 0.012 0.009 -0.000 0.035 Anxiety Low 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.018 0.004 0.003 -0.001 0.011 High 0.012� 0.008 0.001 0.030 SMM3: Relatives’ EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Depression Low -0.006 0.015 -0.037 0.026 0.025� 0.016 0.000 0.060 Positive Symptoms High 0.043� 0.029 0.001 0.112 Negative Low -0.006 0.015 -0.036 0.026 0.024� 0.015 0.000 0.059 Affect High 0.042 � 0.028 0.000 0.107 Anxiety Low 0.014 0.021 -0.029 0.054 0.005 0.010 -0.013 0.031 High 0.025 0.020 -0.005 0.073 SMM4: Relatives’ EOI➔ Perceived EOI➔ Negative SE➔ Depression Low 0.002 0.006 -0.009 0.016 0.007 0.006 -0.002 0.020 Paranoia High 0.014 0.011 -0.000 0.041 Negative Low 0.001 0.006 -0.009 0.015 0.007 0.006 -0.001 0.021 Affect High 0.015 0.011 -0.000 0.042 Anxiety Low 0.006 0.007 -0.007 0.023 0.004 0.004 -0.002 0.013 High 0.015� 0.010 0.000 0.039 Note: Results are based on 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples. a Relatives’ Criticism, Relatives’ EOI (X-Independent variable) and Diagnostic Category (W-moderator) were mean centered prior to analyses. � 95% Confidence Interval does not include zero. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721.t006 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 11 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Conversely, analyses revealed that high levels of anxiety symptoms (but not depressive or NA symptoms) moderated: (1) the indirect effect of relatives’ criticism on paranoia through perceived criticism and negative SE (SMM2), and (2) the indirect effect of relatives’ EOI on paranoia through perceived EOI and negative SE (SMM4). Hence, the indirect effects of rela- tives’ criticism/EOI on paranoia was observed when anxiety levels are high (1 SD above the mean) but not when anxiety symptoms are low (1SD below the mean). However, the condi- tional IE (as indicated by the IMM) did not differ across low and high levels of anxiety. This suggested that the above-mentioned indirect effects did not differ significantly across low and high levels of patients’ anxiety. Discussion The present study emphasizes the importance of considering the interplay between microso- cial environmental factors such as family dynamics and SE in the formation and/or expression of positive symptoms and paranoia in the critical period of the emergence of psychosis. To the best of our knowledge, the effects of relatives’ EE and patients’ perceived EE on symptomatol- ogy via patient’ SE have not been previously explored in early psychosis. Parallel mediation analyses provided a sophisticated approach for independently examining the impact of rela- tives’ EE dimensions and perceived EE on symptoms via SE dimensions, indicating that only perceived EE, but not relatives’ EE ratings, impacted negatively on positive symptoms and paranoia via negative SE. However, when all these variables were simultaneously analyzed in a comprehensive serial mediation model, our results revealed, for the first time, that relatives’ EE ratings were serially associated with perceived EE and negative SE, resulting in increased positive symptoms and paranoia. In addition, the current study provides a novel contribution by indicating that patients’ distress moderated the effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms through its impact on perceived EE and negative SE. Our findings also revealed that negative, but not positive, SE was the most common mediating factor between EE and symptoms, suggesting that negative SE may be especially related to positive symptoms and paranoia [46], and highlighting the significance of separately exploring positive and negative SE [17,36,37]. Finally, this study emphasizes how the interplay between family environment and SE is related to the expression of symptoms across ARMS and FEP stages, thereby enabling detection of meaningful differences in these mechanisms across risk and first episode phases. The effect of relatives’ EE and perceived EE In contrast to our expectations and previous research [17], SE dimensions did not emerge as mediators between relatives’ EE and symptoms. However, in accordance with results from Barrowclough et al. [17], relatives’ criticism did have an effect on negative SE through subjec- tive appraisals of such family attitudes. Furthermore, the effect of relatives’ EOI on negative SE was mediated by the influence of the EOI on the patient. This suggests that the impact of rela- tives’ EE on patients’ SE might only occur when critical and/or EOI attitudes from family members are salient to an individual’s self-evaluation, suggesting that patients’ subjective appraisals of EE are more relevant to their SE than relatives’ EE itself. The effect of perceived EE on symptoms via SE Given that perceived EE mediates patients’ SE [17] and low SE impacts the formation of symp- toms, as previously suggested by both theoretical and empirical research [1–3], then perceived EE may be a better predictor of outcome than relatives’ EE itself, and thus a more sensitive pre- dictor of symptom exacerbation [e.g., 27–29]. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 12 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms Consistent with our hypotheses, parallel mediation analyses indicated that perceived criti- cism had an indirect effect on positive symptoms and paranoia through negative, but not posi- tive, SE. Drawing from previous models [17–19], our findings suggest that continued perceptions of critical attitudes from family members might foster an internalization of criti- cism (e.g., self-criticism). Such continued self-criticism could trigger beliefs of inferiority about the self (e.g., dysfunctional self-concepts such as “I am bad”, “I am useless”) and decrease SE, thus rendering individuals more susceptible to mistrusting others’ intentions or perceiving the world as dangerous. Dysfunctional beliefs about the self could be projected to interpersonal relationships, thus contributing to the emergence of cognitive and perceptual disturbances (e.g., the self is experienced as bad, leading to ideas that others will criticize me) [e.g., 2]. The effect of perceived EOI on positive symptoms and paranoia via negative SE, suggests that continued perceptions of EOI from family members (e.g., worry, controlling behaviors, continued self-sacrifice) could contribute to the perception of less autonomy and self-gover- nance in the patient (i.e., negative beliefs about the self). These results support previous find- ings [19] and are consistent with the model that negative beliefs about the self may evolve into negative evaluations of others that may influence paranoid ideation, delusional beliefs or per- ceptual disturbances [e.g., 47]. The moderating role of group Perceived criticism mediated the effect of relatives’ criticism on negative SE in FEP patients but not in ARMS patients. It is likely that FEP, unlike ARMS patients, have had a continued exposure to relatives’ critical attitudes during both the at risk and FEP stages that might pro- duce deleterious effects on their SE because of the cumulative impact of social stress. Con- versely, perceived EOI mediated the effect of relatives’ EOI on negative SE in ARMS but not FEP patients. A possible explanation might be that relatives of ARMS patients are exposed for the first time to symptoms and impairment, and this may trigger the onset of EOI attitudes more so in ARMS than FEP relatives. Therefore, ARMS patients may suddenly perceive intru- sive and excessively protective attitudes from their caregivers that might threaten their apprais- als of individual autonomy and negatively influence their SE. These moderated mediation results deserve their own interpretation because significant conditional IEs were observed for the FEP and ARMS group. However, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the mentioned IEs differed significantly between the two groups, as the magnitude of the conditional IEs was not significantly different across ARMS and FEP groups. The effect of perceived criticism on positive symptoms and paranoia was mediated by SE in FEP but not in ARMS patients. As suggested, these differences might relate to a longer expo- sure to criticism experienced by FEP patients, and the cumulative effect of criticism might pro- voke a greater negative SE impairment and ultimately a deleterious impact on positive symptoms and paranoia. Importantly, both positive and negative SE mediated the impact of perceived criticism on positive symptoms in FEP patients. It may be that prolonged exposure to critical attitudes could impair both negative and positive beliefs about the self in FEP patients, and also to invoke the notion that repeated exposure to environmental stressors (e.g., critical attitudes) sensitizes the behavioral stress response to subsequent reexposures (i.e., behavioral sensitization), implying an increased psychotic reactivity to stress [48,49]. On the other hand, the effect of perceived EOI on paranoia was mediated by negative SE in FEP but not in ARMS patients. At first instance, this result could seem counterintuitive given that the present study has also shown that relatives’ EOI had a stronger negative influence on ARMS patients’ negative SE via perceived EOI. Thus, one might expect that perceived EOI also had a more negative impact on symptoms in ARMS, but this is not the case. Therefore, it seems that PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 13 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms although EOI is more detrimental for ARMS patients’ SE, this does not yet lead to the worsen- ing their symptoms. Presumably, given that patients with longer-lasting and more severe psy- chotic symptoms (i.e., FEP patients in comparison to ARMS) tend to be more sensitive to environmental stress -probably because of behavioral sensitization processes- [50,51], it is likely that FEP individuals show increased emotional and psychotic reactivity to family nega- tive attitudes. Finally, the effect of perceived warmth on both positive symptoms and paranoia was medi- ated by positive SE in FEP but not in ARMS. These results suggest that FEP patients, character- ized by heightened environmental susceptibility [e.g., 52] display enhanced sensitivity to negative family environments and positive family environments, which has therapeutic impli- cations and highlights the relevance of social support as a protective factor of psychosis [53]. The effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms via perceived EE and negative SE Given that EE reflects a transactional process between patients and relatives [54], patients’ per- ceptions of their relatives’ attitudes are as important as relatives’ attitudes. Therefore, we tested a multiple serial mediation model encompassing relatives’ EE, perceived EE, SE and symp- toms. Our results indicated that relatives’ criticism/EOI was serially associated to perceived criticism/EOI and negative SE, which resulted in increased positive symptoms and paranoia. This means that relatives’ EE attitudes impacts symptoms through the cumulative effect exerted on perceived EE and negative SE. Note that the effect of relatives’ EE on symptoms via SE dimensions was not significant. Thus, patients’ subjective appraisals of their family environment (perceived EE) appear funda- mental for understanding the association of relatives’ EE and patients’ outcomes. This chal- lenges some traditional EE research that described the patient as passively experiencing relative’s EE attitudes, and highlights the relevance of subjective appraisals. Hence, the current results extend previous research [17,18] by showing that the dyadic view of EE is relevant to enrich our understanding of the mechanisms leading to the impairment of both SE and symptoms. The moderating effect of patients’ distress The hypothesized moderated serial mediation models sought to clarify whether the impact of EE attitudes on the subsequent cognitive responses and psychotic symptoms is moderated by a final affective reaction (i.e., patients’ distress variables), which in turn could be deemed as a "final trigger" of psychotic symptoms. Results indicated a separate emotional pathway to overall positive symptoms and paranoia. Specifically, high levels of depressive and NA symptoms (but not anxiety) moderated the effect of relatives’ EE on positive symptoms via perceived criticism/EOI and negative SE. The magni- tude of the conditional IE was significantly different across high and low levels of both depres- sive and NA symptoms. Conversely, results showed that high levels of anxiety (but not depression or NA) moderated the effect of relatives’ EE on paranoia via perceived criticism/ EOI and negative SE, which emphasize the specific role of anxiety in the development of para- noia [40,55]. However, the conditional IE (as indicated by the IMM) did not differ across low and high levels of anxiety. These findings are line with prominent theories [14,15] that negative emotional states are critical elements influencing the association between a negative family environment and posi- tive symptoms [16]. Moreover, our results are broadly consistent with the postulated affective pathway from negative SE to positive symptoms via negative affect [2,56,57], and also with the combined cognitive and affective pathway to positive symptoms proposed by Garety et al. [2]. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 14 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms In this combined pathway, triggering events (e.g., family negative attitudes) result in the dis- ruption of both cognitive (e.g., negative beliefs about the self) and affective processes (i.e., neg- ative emotional states), which in turn lead to the formation of positive symptoms. Overall, these findings add to a growing research showing that environmental stressors result in nega- tive SE, and that negative SE precedes and triggers symptoms via negative emotional states. Regarding limitations, the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences, which require longitudinal studies. Due to limitations on the sample size, findings and conclusions from the present study must be interpreted. Also, the use of self-report measures of relatives’ EE, per- ceived EE, SE as well as some variables of patients’ distress were assessed using a self-reporting mechanism, additional observed-based rating of these constructs would have allowed for a more differentiated view. Finally, given that the EE construct is conceptualized within an inter- actional framework [58,59], it is crucial that future studies examine how EE attitudes are related to patients’ SE and clinical outcomes in real time as relatives and patients navigate their real-life settings. The present study provides new insights into the critical microenvironmental factor of fam- ily dynamics, as well as psychological mechanisms underlying the early manifestation of positive symptoms and paranoia. Collectively, findings indicated that patients’ negative SE is relevant for how family negative attitudes (based on the subjective appraisals of both relatives and patients) impact the formation of positive symptoms and paranoia in the early stages of the dis- order. Furthermore, patients’ negative emotional states are relevant for understanding these associations and offer promising targets for prophylactic interventions. These findings suggest that broader interventions for patients and their relatives that aim at improving family atmo- sphere might be able to improve patients’ SE and reduce or prevent negative clinical outcomes. Supporting information S1 Fig. Flow chart describing the participants included in the study. (DOCX) S1 Table. Pearson correlations among BDI, CDS and PANSS-Depression (n = 58). (DOCX) S2 Table. Pearson correlations among BDI, CDS and PANSS-5 Factors-Depression/Anxi- ety Scale (n = 58). (DOCX) S3 Table. Descriptive data on socio-demographic characteristics of early psychosis patients and their respective relatives. (DOCX) S4 Table. Descriptive data of early psychosis patients and their respective relatives. (DOCX) S5 Table. Pearson correlations of relatives’ EE with patients’ symptoms (n = 77). (DOCX) S6 Table. Pearson correlations of patients’ SE with relatives’ EE and patients’ symptoms (n = 77). (DOCX) S7 Table. Conditional indirect effects of relatives’ EE on symptoms through positive and negative SE (n = 77). (DOCX) PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 15 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms S8 Table. Pearson correlations of relatives’ EE with patients’ SE (n = 58). (DOCX) S9 Table. Pearson correlations of patients’ perceived EE with relatives’ EE and patients’ SE (n = 58). (DOCX) S10 Table. Pearson correlations of perceived EE with symptoms (n = 93). (DOCX) S11 Table. Pearson correlations of patients’ SE with patients’ perceived EE and patients’ symptoms (n = 93). (DOCX) S12 Table. Conditional indirect effects of relatives’ EE on symptoms through perceived EE (M1) and negative SE (M2) (n = 58). (DOCX) Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the support offered by the clinicians and all members of the staff of the Fundació Sanitària Sant Pere Claver who provided access to the families that participated in the study. Specially thanks to the patients and their respective relatives who consented to par- ticipate. We acknowledge Tecelli Domı́nguez-Martı́nez, Paula Cristóbal-Narváez and Cristina Medina-Pradas for their participation in the data collection. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Bar- rantes-Vidal. Data curation: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Bar- rantes-Vidal. Formal analysis: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Bar- rantes-Vidal. Funding acquisition: Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Investigation: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Methodology: Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Project administration: Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Resources: Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Software: Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Supervision: Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Validation: Thomas R. Kwapil. Visualization: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. Writing – original draft: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet. Writing – review & editing: Lı́dia Hinojosa-Marqués, Manel Monsonet, Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Barrantes-Vidal. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 16 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms References 1. Bentall RP, Corcoran R, Howard R, Blackwood N, Kinderman P. Persecutory delusions: A review and theoretical integration. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001; 21: 1143–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(01) 00106-4 PMID: 11702511 2. Garety PA, Kuipers E, Fowler D, Freeman D, Bebbington PE. A cognitive model of the positive symp- toms of psychosis. Psychol Med. 2001; 31: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291701003312 PMID: 11232907 3. Freeman D, Garety P. Advances in understanding and treating persecutory delusions: A review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014; 49: 1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-014-0928-7 PMID: 25005465 4. Kesting ML, Lincoln TM. The relevance of self-esteem and self-schemas to persecutory delusions: A systematic review. Compr Psychiatry. 2013; 54: 766–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2013. 03.002 PMID: 23684547 5. Monsonet M, Kwapil TR, Barrantes-Vidal N. Deconstructing the relationships between self-esteem and paranoia in early psychosis: an experience sampling study. Br J Clin Psychol. 2020; 59: 503–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12263 PMID: 32862467 6. Murphy P, Bentall RP, Freeman D, O’Rourke S, Hutton P. The “paranoia-as-defence” model of perse- cutory delusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5: 1–16. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30474-1 PMID: 29217150 7. Brown GW, Birley JLT, Wing JK. Influence of family life on the course of schizophrenic illness. Br J Psy- chiatry. 1972; 121: 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.121.3.241 PMID: 5073778 8. Butzlaff R, Hooley J. Expressed emotion and psychiatric relapse: a meta- analysis. Arch Gen Psychia- try. 1998; 55:547–552. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.6.547 PMID: 9633674 9. Cechnicki A, Bielańska A, Hanuszkiewicz I, Daren A. The predictive validity of Expressed Emotions (EE) in schizophrenia. A 20-year prospective study. J Psychiatr Res. 2013; 47: 208–214. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.10.004 PMID: 23158233 10. Marom S, Munitz H, Jones PB, Weizman A, Hermesh H. Expressed emotion: Relevance to rehospitali- zation in schizophrenia over 7 years. Schizophr Bull. 2005; 31: 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/ schbul/sbi016 PMID: 16123528 11. Koutra K, Triliva S, Roumeliotaki T, Basta M, Simos P, Lionis C, et al. Impaired family functioning in psy- chosis and its relevance to relapse: a two-year follow-up study. Compr Psychiatry. 2015; https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.06.006 PMID: 26343461 12. Schlosser DA, Zinberg JL, Loewy RL, Casey-Cannon S, O’Brien MP, Bearden CE, et al. Predicting the longitudinal effects of the family environment on prodromal symptoms and functioning in patients at-risk for psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2010; 118: 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2010.01.017 PMID: 20171848 13. Fisher HL, Schreier A, Zammit S, Maughan B, Munafò MR, Lewis G, et al. Pathways between childhood victimization and psychosis-like symptoms in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Schizophr Bull. 2013; 39: 1045– 1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs088 PMID: 22941743 14. Tarrier N, Turpin G. Psychosocial Factors, arousal and schizophrenic relapse: the psychophysiological data. Br J Psychiatry. 1992; 161: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.161.1.3 PMID: 1638327 15. Turpin G, Clements K. Psychophysiological contributions to clinical assessment and treatment. In: Kavanagh D, editor. Schizophrenia: an overview and practical handbook. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1992. 16. Finnegan D, Onwumere J, Green C, Freeman D, Garety P, Kuipers E. Negative communication in psy- chosis. Understanding pathways to poorer patient outcomes. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014; 202: 829–832. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000204 PMID: 25357253 17. Barrowclough C, Tarrier N, Humphreys L, Ward J, Gregg L, Andrews B. Self-esteem in schizophrenia: Relationships between self-evaluation, family attitudes, and symptomatology. J Abnorm Psychol. 2003; 112: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.92 PMID: 12653417 18. Hesse K, Kriston L, Mehl S, Wittorf A, Wiedemann W, Wölwer W, et al. The vicious cycle of family atmo- sphere, interpersonal self-concepts, and paranoia in schizophrenia—a longitudinal study. Schizophr Bull. 2015; 41: 1403–1412. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv055 PMID: 25925392 19. Valiente C, Romero N, Hervas G, Espinosa R. Evaluative beliefs as mediators of the relationship between parental bonding and symptoms of paranoia and depression. Psychiatry Res. 2014; 215: 75– 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.10.014 PMID: 24210664 20. Lee G, Barrowclough C, Lobban F. Positive affect in the family environment protects against relapse in first-episode psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014; 49: 367–376. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00127-013-0768-x PMID: 24081324 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 17 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms 21. López SR, Hipke KN, Polo AJ, Jenkins JH, Karno M, Vaughn C, et al. Ethnicity, expressed emotion, attributions, and course of schizophrenia: Family warmth matters. J Abnorm Psychol. 2004; 113: 428– 439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.3.428 PMID: 15311988 22. O’Brien MP, Gordon JL, Bearden CE, Lopez SR, Kopelowicz A, Cannon TD. Positive family environ- ment predicts improvement in symptoms and social functioning among adolescents at imminent risk for onset of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2006; 81: 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2005.10.005 PMID: 16309893 23. Brewin CR, Andrews B, Furnham A. Intergenerational links and positive self-cognitions: Parental corre- lates of optimism, learned resourcefulness, and self-evaluation. Cognit Ther Res. 1996; 20: 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229236 24. Kwapil TR, Barrantes-Vidal N. Schizotypy: Looking back and moving forward. Schizophr Bull. 2015; 41: S366–S373. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu186 PMID: 25548387 25. Fusar-Poli P, Cappucciati M, Borgwardt S, Wood SW, Addington J, Nelson B, et al. Heterogeneity of psychosis risk within individuals at clinical high risk: a meta-analytical stratification. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016; 73: 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2324 PMID: 26719911 26. Fusar-Poli P, Salazar de Pablo G, Correll CU, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Millan MJ, Borgwardt S, et al. Pre- vention of Psychosis: Advances in Detection, Prognosis, and Intervention. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020; 77: 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4779 PMID: 32159746. 27. Hooley JM, Teasdale JD. Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives: Expressed emotion, marital dis- tress, and perceived criticism. J Abnorm Psychol. 1989; 98: 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021- 843x.98.3.229 PMID: 2768657 28. Tompson MC, Goldstein MJ, Lebell MB, Mintz LI, Marder SR, Mintz J. Schizophrenic patients’ percep- tions of their relatives’ attitudes. Psychiatry Res. 1995; 57: 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781 (95)02598-q PMID: 7480382 29. Renshaw KD. The predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of perceived criticism: A review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008; 28: 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.002 PMID: 17913319 30. Domı́nguez-Martı́nez T, Vainer E, Massanet MA, Torices I, Jané M, Barrantes-Vidal N. The need- adapted integrated treatment in Sant Pere Claver-Early Psychosis Program (SPC-EPP) in Barcelona, Spain. Salud Ment. 2011; 34: 517–524. 31. Yung AR, Yuen HP, Mcgorry PD, Phillips LJ, Kelly D, Dell’olio M, et al. Mapping the onset of psychosis: The comprehensive assessment of at-risk mental states. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005; 39: 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x PMID: 16343296 32. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. 33. Wiedemann G, Rayki O, Feinstein E, Hahlweg K. The family questionnaire: Development and validation of a new self-report scale for assessing expressed emotion. Psychiatry Res. 2002; 109: 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-1781(02)00023-9 PMID: 11959363 34. Medina-Pradas C, Navarro JB, López SR, Grau A, Obiols JE. Further development of a scale of per- ceived expressed emotion and its evaluation in a sample of patients with eating disorders. Psychiatry Res. 2011; 190: 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.011 PMID: 21737145 35. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965. 36. Palmier-Claus J, Dunn G, Drake R, Lewis S. The negative and positive self: A longitudinal study exam- ining self-esteem, paranoia and negative symptoms in individuals with first-episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2011; 5: 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7893.2010.00250.x PMID: 21352513 37. Stewart C, Rogers F, Pilch M, Stewart I, Barnes-Holmes Y, Westermann S. The effect of social exclu- sion on state paranoia and explicit and implicit self-esteem in a non-clinical sample. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017; 57: 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.04.001 PMID: 28419917 38. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987; 13: 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/13.2.261 PMID: 3616518 39. Freeman D, Fowler D. Routes to psychotic symptoms: Trauma, anxiety and psychosis-like experiences. Psychiatry Res. 2009; 169: 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.07.009 PMID: 19700201 40. Lincoln TM, Lange J, Burau J, Exner C, Moritz S. The effect of state anxiety on paranoid ideation and jumping to conclusions. An experimental investigation. Schizophr Bull. 2010; 36: 1140–1148. https:// doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp029 PMID: 19429844 41. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An Inventory for Measuring Depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961; 4: 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 PMID: 13688369 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 18 / 19 PLOS ONE Family environment, self-esteem and early psychosis symptoms 42. Addington D, Addington J, Schissel B. A depression rating scale for schizophrenics. Schizophr Res. 1990; 3: 247–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-9964(90)90005-r PMID: 2278986 43. Emsley R, Rabinowitz J, Torreman M, Schooler N, Kapala L, Davidson M, et al. The factor structure for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) in recent-onset psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2003; 61: 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0920-9964(02)00302-x PMID: 12648735 44. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression- Based Approach. 1st ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2013. 45. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression- Based Approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2018. 46. Humphreys L, Barrowclough C. Attributional style, defensive functioning and persecutory delusions: Symptom-specific or general coping strategy? Br J Clin Psychol. 2006; 45: 231–246. https://doi.org/10. 1348/014466505X50509 PMID: 16719981 47. Freeman D, Garety PA. Connecting neurosis and psychosis: The direct influence of emotion on delu- sions and hallucinations. Behav Res Ther. 2003; 41: 923–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(02) 00104-3 PMID: 12880647 48. Myin-Germeys I, Delespaul P, Van Os J. Behavioral sensitization to daily life stress in psychosis. Psy- chol Med. 2005; 35: 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291704004179 PMID: 15918350 49. Myin-Germeys I, van Os J. Stress-reactivity in psychosis: Evidence for an affective pathway to psycho- sis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007; 27: 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.005 PMID: 17222489 50. Lukoff D, Snyder K, Ventura J, Nuechterlein KH. Life events, familial stress, and coping in the develop- mental course of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1984; 10: 258–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/10. 2.258 PMID: 6729412 51. Norman RMG, Malla AK. Subjective stress in schizophrenic patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epide- miol. 1991; 26: 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00788968 PMID: 1745925 52. Reininghaus U, Gayer-Anderson C, Valmaggia L, Kempton MJ, Calem M, Onyejiaka A, et al. Psycho- logical processes underlying the association between childhood trauma and psychosis in daily life: An experience sampling study. Psychol Med. 2016; 46: 2799–2813. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S003329171600146X PMID: 27400863 53. Sündermann O, Onwumere J, Kane F, Morgan C, Kuipers E. Social networks and support in first-epi- sode psychosis: Exploring the role of loneliness and anxiety. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014; 49: 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0754-3 PMID: 23955376 54. Strachan AM, Feingold D, Goldstein MJ, Miklowitz DJ, Nuechterlein KH. Is Expressed Emotion an Index of a Transactional Process? II. Patient’s Coping Style. Fam Process. 1989; 28: 169–181. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1989.00169.x PMID: 2731609 55. Freeman D. Suspicious minds: The psychology of persecutory delusions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007; 27: 425–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.10.004 PMID: 17258852 56. Jaya ES, Ascone L, Lincoln TM. A longitudinal mediation analysis of the effect of negative-self-schemas on positive symptoms via negative affect. Psychol Med. 2018; 48: 1299–1307. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S003329171700277X PMID: 28956520 57. Smith B, Fowler DG, Freeman D, Bebbington P, Bashforth H, Garety P, et al. Emotion and psychosis: Links between depression, self-esteem, negative schematic beliefs and delusions and hallucinations. Schizophr Res. 2006; 86: 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2006.06.018 PMID: 16857346 58. Hooley JM. Expressed Emotion and Relapse of Psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007; 3: 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095236 PMID: 17716059 59. Miklowitz DJ. The role of family systems in severe and recurrent psychiatric disorders: a developmental psychopathology view. Dev Psychopathol. 2004; 16: 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s0954579404004729 PMID: 15605631 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249721 April 5, 2021 19 / 19