Poor functioning has been found to be present prior to the onset of psychosis and as such, is included in the criteria for identifying those with an ‘At Risk Mental State’ (ARMS) (Cannon et al., 2008; Yung et al., 2004, 2005). Social functioning specifically has received increased attention in at risk for psychosis research. The definition of social functioning varies across research in this area. Based on the measures used to assess social functioning in past research with young people with an ARMS, this construct tends to relate to occupational and educational performance, relationships with peers and family members, engagement in leisure and sports activities, level of independence and interpersonal and communication abilities (Addington et al., 2008, 2013; Ballon et al., 2007; Cornblatt et al., 2007; Hodgekins et al., 2015; O’Brien et al., 2006; Palmier-Claus et al., 2016; Rapado-Castro et al., 2015). Social functioning (measured with the Time Use Survey) has been found to be significantly lower in those with an ARMS and those experiencing psychosis than in the non-clinical population (Hodgekins et al., 2015). The Time Use Survey measures structured activity (i.e. education, employment, leisure and sports activity, childcare and housework and chores). Hodgekins et al. (2015) identified that 50% of those with an ARMS engaged in 30 h or less of structured activity per week. Participants scoring 45 h or less per week on this measure were considered to be ‘socially disabled’ (significantly lower social functioning scores than the non-clinical population) and scoring within clinical parameters. Past research has identified social functioning to be both a ‘trait’ and ‘state’ factor in those at risk of schizophrenia (Shim et al., 2008). However, Shim et al. (2008) found that positive and negative symptoms did not have significant relationships with social functioning. However, significant relationships between social functioning and depressive, negative and disorganised symptoms, but not positive symptoms in young people at risk for psychosis have been reported (Corcoran et al., 2011). Chudleigh et al. (2011) in a study of the early stages of psychosis found significant relationships between positive symptoms and qualitative (but not quantitative) measures of social functioning in those at risk for and experiencing a first episode psychosis. No significant relationships were found between social functioning and negative symptoms. They also reported large significant associations between depression and quantitative and qualitative measures of social functioning in those at risk for psychosis. Social anxiety did not have any relation to social functioning in those at risk for psychosis, but large correlations were found between these variables in the first episode psychosis group (Chudleigh et al., 2011). It appears that the relationship between social functioning and symptomatology is a complex one in those experiencing early psychosis. Social functioning difficulties are known to be a source of distress for young people experiencing them, above and beyond psychotic and depressive symptoms (Rapado-Castro et al., 2015). More work needs to be done to establish the factors related to social functioning in those experiencing psychosis.