CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health via Writing

Cognition and self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review of longitudinal studies

Cha, Christine B., Wilson, Kelly M., Tezanos, Katherine M., DiVasto, Katherine A., Tolchin, Gabrielle K.·2019·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is a long tradition in suicide research, accompanied by recent developments in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) research, of examining cognitive processes as potential precursors of risk. But these cognitive processes are often studied separately, and are rarely integrated or directly compared with each other. In an effort to synthesize this literature, this systematic review (n=109 longitudinal studies conducted over the past 10 years) demonstrates how specific cognitive processes predict self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs), and examines whether intervening on features of cognition may help mitigate SITB risk. Our review reveals that cognitive processes, measured using self-report and behavioral measures, are most often linked to recurrent suicidal ideation. Overall, several patterns emerged. First, SITB-themed cognitions were robust risk factors and proximally associated with SITB outcomes. Second, negatively-valenced cognitive risk factors were the most commonly studied risk factors, relatively robust, and modestly related to SITB outcomes. Third, cognitive deficits (i.e., basic cognitive processes not characterized by thematic content or negative valence) produced mixed findings that suggest a more distal relationship to SITB outcomes. Moreover, our review of treatment articles revealed that while many interventions are informed by the cognitive literature, potential cognitive mechanisms of treatment change are rarely studied. We conclude by outlining key ways that future research can generate more comprehensive cognitive profiles of self-injurious and suicidal individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.002

Cites

151 of 151 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?

  • Relational stress and impulsivity have been linked to suicide attempts.

    “given that relational stress and impulsivity have been linked to suicide attempts (50, 83).”

    From New methods for assessing rapid changes in suicide risk (2021) · cites this paper as [50]

  • On average, suicide attempters exhibit less cognitive flexibility, more impulsivity, and worse memory and attention than non-attempters.

    “The bulk of the initial literature focused on traditional cognitive measures, including the Iowa Gambling Task, the Stroop, the Go/No-Go, or the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task; results indicated that, on average, suicide attempters exhibit less cognitive flexibility, more impulsivity, and worse memory and attention than non-attempters (50–52).”

    From New methods for assessing rapid changes in suicide risk (2021) · cites this paper as [50]

  • Cognitive constructs such as impulsiveness and hopelessness have already been linked to suicide risk, primarily using self-report measures.

    “Cognitive constructs such as impulsiveness and hopelessness have already been linked to suicide risk, primarily using self-report measures (50).”

    From New methods for assessing rapid changes in suicide risk (2021) · cites this paper as [50]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 152 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cha, C. B., Wilson, K. M., Tezanos, K. M., DiVasto, K. A., & Tolchin, G. K.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Cha, Christine B.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
69
Pages
97-111
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.002
OpenAlex
W2889083522
Cited by
94
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Teachers College
  • Columbia University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
non-suicidal self-injury, self-injurious thoughts and behaviors, suicidal ideation, cognitive processes, cognitive risk factors, negative valence, cognitive impairment, cognitive intervention, suicide risk
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Thinking, Self-Injurious Behavior, Cognitive Dysfunction

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