Background: Anhedonia has long been associated with schizophrenia (SZ); however, the true nature of this deficit remains elusive. Given the role of hedonic capacity within the larger motivational framework, we sought to examine reward responsiveness (RR) and reward expectancy (RE) across a spectrum of motivation deficits in SZ (Study 1). Further, we sought to better understand the relationship between hedonic capacity and specific facets of the motivational system (Study 2). Methods: In study 1, RR and RE were assessed using the self-report Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) in a sample of 72 SZ patients and 74 healthy controls. In study 2, 99 healthy undergraduate students completed the TEPS as well as objective measures of RR, RE, reward valuation, effort valuation, and goal-directed decision-making using the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), Cued Reinforcement Reaction Time (CRRT) task, Kirby Delay Discounting (DD) task, Virtual Reality Progressive Ratio (ViPR) task, and the Multitasking in the City Test (MCT), respectively. Further, the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) was administered to characterize subclinical schizotypal traits. In both studies, the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) was used to characterize participants into low, moderate, and high amotivation groups. Results: In both studies, a multivariate analysis of variance revealed a main effect of amotivation such that participants with high levels of amotivation reported significantly lower levels of RR and RE compared to those at low and moderate levels (Study 1: F(4, 280) = 2.962, P =.02, η2 =.041; Study 2: F(4, 170) = 4.453, P =.002, η2 =.095). In Study 1, an interaction effect revealed that patients with moderate levels of amotivation endorsed significantly higher levels of RE compared to healthy controls at the same level, and to patients at both low and high levels of amotivation (F(2) = 2.674, P =.007). In Study 2, correlational analyses revealed that both RR (r =.32, P =.002) and RE (r =.38, P <.001) were correlated with IAPS pleasantness ratings. Further, RE was correlated with IAPS arousal ratings on the IAPS (r =.33, P =.001) and the ViPR task (r = −.25, P =.032). RE (r = −.37, P <.001) and IAPS pleasantness (r = −.31, P =.003) and arousal (r = −.34, P =.001) ratings were also correlated with the negative subscale of the SPQ. Conclusion: Overall, the results of both studies suggest that impairments in RR and RE emerge exclusively in individuals with high levels of motivation deficits, regardless of diagnosis. Further, Study 1 illustrates the complex relationship between self-reported RE, amotivation, and diagnosis. Correlational analyses in Study 2 suggest that emotional arousal and cost–benefit analyses are related to the evaluation of prospective rewards on the TEPS. Going forward, utilizing both subjective and objective measures of hedonic capacity may serve to further our understanding of the nuances of motivation and reward system impairments in SZ.