Cited by 31Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health Research TopicsMental Health via Writing

The temporal dynamics of wish to live, wish to die, and their short-term prospective relationships with suicidal desire

Open access
Oakey-Frost, Nicolas, Moscardini, Emma H., Cowan, Tovah, Cohen, Alex, Tucker, Raymond P.·2023·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

The internal debate hypothesis (Kovacs & Beck, 1977) suggests that those at risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors may experience fluctuations in both the wish to live (WTL) and wish to die (WTD). Previous research has investigated this hypothesis using various cross-sectional (Goods et al., 2019 [cf. Page & Stritzke, 2020]) and longitudinal methodologies (e.g., Bryan et al., 2016). No investigations have determined the within-day temporal dynamics of WTL and WTD using ecological moment assessment (EMA), however. N = 49 undergraduate university students recruited from a research participant pool from a large southeastern university in the United States with a lifetime history of suicide ideation completed the current 10-day EMA investigation. Results demonstrated that WTL, WTD, and resulting suicidal ambivalence (i.e., relatively equal WTL/WTD ratings) demonstrated similar within-person person variability; however, WTD scores appeared to demonstrate higher average variability compared to WTL and ambivalence scores. Although state WTL and WTD were concurrently related to state suicidal desire, only WTD prospectively predicted suicidal desire when controlling for the influence of the outcome variable at the previous timepoint. Ambivalence scores also prospectively predicted suicidal desire when controlling for suicidal desire at the previous timepoint. Results support the clinical and theoretical utility of separate WTL and WTD assessment. WTD was relatively stable within this sample but may be closely related to risk for future suicidal thinking. Changes in WTL may reduce state risk for suicidal desire but could be more trait-like in nature compared to WTD. Future research that investigates these hypotheses should consider the study limitations outlined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2022.12.011

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oakey-Frost, N., Moscardini, E. H., Cowan, T., Cohen, A., & Tucker, R. P.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
584-594
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313560962
Cited by
31
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Funders
Military Suicide Research Consortium
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
desire for death, suicidal desire, suicidal ideation, within-person variability, temporal dynamics, ecological momentary assessment, university students, suicide risk
MeSH terms
Affect, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Prospective Studies, Suicidal Ideation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review