ArticleScientific reports2026
Behavioral differences in cooperation between patients with schizophrenia and control participants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compares cooperative behavior between patients with schizophrenia and a non-clinical student group using an incentivized experimental paradigm and controlling for beliefs, emotions, and demographics. Participants in both groups played one-shot and finitely repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma (RPD) games against an artificial agent trained to mimic human decision-making. The experimental design encouraged continuous belief updating and behavioral adaptation. Our results show that patients with schizophrenia cooperate significantly more than controls in one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) games and display lower adaptability to the environment in which they interact. Specifically, unlike controls, their likelihood of cooperation is unaffected by the type of PD game (one-shot or repeated) and does not significantly decline over rounds in the RPD games. Our regression analysis shows that beliefs about a partner’s cooperation, positive emotions, and the type of game are all significant predictors of cooperative behavior in the non-clinical sample. In contrast, among clinical participants, only beliefs significantly predict cooperation. Patients also show a reduced ability to predict others’ behavior, and their adopted strategies are largely unidentifiable. Together, our experimental results reveal systematic differences between the two samples in their interactions with artificial agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.