Search

The interpersonal theory of suicide posits that individuals who simultaneously experience high levels of thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability for suicide are at high risk for a lethal or near-lethal suicide attempt. Although supported by self-report studies, no study has examined facets of the theory experimentally. The present study aimed to examine the belongingness and capability components of the theory by testing whether experimentally manipulated social exclusion interacts with self-reported acquired capability to predict higher self-administered shock levels on a self-aggression paradigm. A sample of 253 students completed self-report measures and were then randomly assigned to a social exclusion manipulation condition (future alone, future belonging, no feedback). Participants then participated in the self-aggression paradigm. The positive association between acquired capability and self-aggression was strongest among participants in the future alone social exclusion condition. In those assigned to the future belonging or no feedback conditions, the association between acquired capability and self-aggression was non-significant. These findings provide modest experimental support for the interpersonal theory of suicide and highlight a potential mechanism through which social exclusion may impact suicide risk. Limitations and future research directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research and popular conceptualizations of suicide have posited that many suicides are the result of impulsive, "on a whim" decisions. However, recent research demonstrates that most suicides are not attempted impulsively, and in fact involve a plan. Legally, suicide has historically been considered to be a superseding intervening cause of death that exonerates other parties from liability, but currently there are two general exceptions to this view. Specifically, another party may be found responsible for a suicide if that party either caused the suicide or failed in its duty to prevent the suicide from occurring. Both of these exceptions assume that the resulting suicide was foreseeable. Given that recent research has indicated that most suicides are planned, and thereby foreseeable to a certain extent under many circumstances, this article discusses issues of foreseeability as they pertain to litigation involving third party liability for the suicide of university students, prison inmates, and mental health patients. The authors contend that the surest way for universities, prison staff, and mental health practitioners to avoid being held liable for a suicide is to appropriately assess for suicidal intent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research and popular conceptualizations of suicide have posited that many suicides are the result of impulsive, “on a whim” decisions. However, recent research demonstrates that most suicides are not attempted impulsively, and in fact involve a plan. Legally, suicide has historically been considered to be a superseding intervening cause of death that exonerates other parties from liability, but currently there are two general exceptions to this view. Specifically, another party may be found responsible for a suicide if that party either caused the suicide or failed in its duty to prevent the suicide from occurring. Both of these exceptions assume that the resulting suicide was foreseeable. Given that recent research has indicated that most suicides are planned, and thereby foreseeable to a certain extent under many circumstances, this article discusses issues of foreseeability as they pertain to litigation involving third party liability for the suicide of university students, prison inmates, and mental health patients. The authors contend that the surest way for universities, prison staff, and mental health practitioners to avoid being held liable for a suicide is to appropriately assess for suicidal intent. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]