CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 347Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesResilience and Mental HealthGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resilience as positive coping appraisals: Testing the schematic appraisals model of suicide (SAMS)

Johnson, J., Gooding, P.A., Wood, A.M., Tarrier, N.·2010·Behaviour Research and Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2009.10.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims The Schematic Appraisals Model of Suicide (SAMS) suggests that positive self-appraisals may be important for buffering suicidal thoughts and behaviours, potentially providing a key source of resilience. The current study aimed to explore whether positive self-appraisals buffered individuals from suicidality in the face of stressful life events.Method 78 participants who reported experiencing some degree of suicidality were recruited from a student population. They completed a battery of questionnaires including measures of suicidality, stressful life events and positive self-appraisals.Results Positive self-appraisals moderated the association between stressful life events and suicidality. For those reporting moderate or high levels of positive self-appraisals, raised incidence of stressful life events did not lead to increases in suicidality.Discussion These results support the SAMS framework, and suggest that positive self-appraisals may confer resilience to suicide. Positive self-appraisals may be a promising avenue for further resilience research, and an important area to target for suicide interventions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2009.10.007

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–347 of 347

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, J., Gooding, P. A., Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Gooding, P.A.
ORCID
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
179-186
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.brat.2009.10.007
OpenAlex
W2105748374
Cited by
347
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Keywords
resilience, suicidality, life events, coping appraisal, moderation, suicide intervention, students
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Suicide, Young Adult

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