CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

A systematic review of the predictions of the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior

Ma, Jennifer, Batterham, Philip J., Calear, Alison L., Han, Jin·2016·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Since the development of the Interpersonal Psychological Theory (IPTS; Joiner, 2005), a growing body of literature has emerged testing different aspects of the theory across a range of populations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify support for the IPTS, and critical gaps in the evidence base, by systematically reviewing current evidence testing the effects of thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability on suicide ideation and attempt. METHODS: PsycInfo and PubMed databases were electronically searched for articles published between January 2005 and July 2015. Articles were included if they directly assessed the IPTS constructs as predictors of suicidal ideation or suicide attempt. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles reporting on 66 studies were identified. Contrary to expectations, the studies provided mixed evidence across the theory's main predictions. The effect of perceived burdensomeness on suicide ideation was the most tested and supported relationship. The theory's other predictions, particularly in terms of critical interaction effects, were less strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: Future research focused on expanding the availability of valid measurement approaches for the interpersonal risk factors, and further elaborating upon their mixed relationships with suicide ideation and attempt across multiple populations is important to advance theoretical and clinical progress in the field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.008

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ma, J., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., & Han, J.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Ma, Jennifer
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
46
Pages
34-45
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.008
OpenAlex
W2339607891
Semantic Scholar
9c5b7bab6caeea977ce604d5b7948c06ba8ab279
Cited by
384
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 7
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
interpersonal theory of suicide, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, acquired capability, interpersonal risk factors, suicide risk prediction
MeSH terms
Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Psychological Theory, Suicide

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