A comparison of specific positive future expectancies and global hopelessness as predictors of suicidal ideation in a prospective study of repeat self-harmers
Abstract
Background Hopelessness and the lack of positive future expectancies have been related to suicidality. This is the first study to compare the power of positive future expectancies and global hopelessness in the prediction of suicidal ideation. In short, are specific positive expectancies or global hopelessness attitudes more closely related to suicidality?Method One hundred and forty four adults hospitalized following a suicidal self-harm episode completed a range of clinical and psychological measures in hospital and were followed up approximately 2.5 months after discharge. All participants reported at least one other self-harm episode in addition to the index episode.Results Hierarchical regression analyses confirmed that specific positive future expectancies were better predictors of Time 2 suicidal ideation than global hopelessness. In addition, as hypothesized, negative future thinking was not independently associated with suicidal ideation.Limitations Short-term follow-up.Conclusions Specific, idiographic expectancies for positive events (i.e., positive future thinking) are more important predictors of suicidal ideation than global attitudes of hopelessness. Unlike global hopelessness, they provide more options for intervention (e.g., identifying life goals and plans). These findings are particularly noteworthy given the widespread use of measures of global hopelessness. The theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A study of patients hospitalized for self-harm found that low positive future orientation more strongly predicted recurrent self-harm after discharge than did global hopelessness.
“and a study of patients hospitalized for self-harm found that low positive future orientation more strongly predicted recurrent selfharm after discharge than did global hopelessness [18].”
From Feasibility and utility of positive psychology exercises for suicidal inpatients (2014) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 111
- Authors
- O'Connor, R. C., Fraser, L., Whyte, M.-C., MacHale, S., & Masterton, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Stirling (GB)
- Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 207-214
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064246879
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 4.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
- Keywords
- suicidal ideation, self-harm, hopelessness theory, suicide risk prediction, life goals
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Attitude to Health, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Recurrence, Suicide, Attempted, Self-Injurious Behavior, Intention, 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