Cited by 86Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Intrapersonal positive future thinking predicts repeat suicide attempts in hospital-treated suicide attempters.

Open access
O'Connor, Rory C., Smyth, Roger, Williams, J. Mark G.·2015·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although there is clear evidence that low levels of positive future thinking (anticipation of positive experiences in the future) and hopelessness are associated with suicide risk, the relationship between the content of positive future thinking and suicidal behavior has yet to be investigated. This is the first study to determine whether the positive future thinking-suicide attempt relationship varies as a function of the content of the thoughts and whether positive future thinking predicts suicide attempts over time. METHOD: A total of 388 patients hospitalized following a suicide attempt completed a range of clinical and psychological measures (depression, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, suicidal intent and positive future thinking). Fifteen months later, a nationally linked database was used to determine who had been hospitalized again after a suicide attempt. RESULTS: During follow-up, 25.6% of linked participants were readmitted to hospital following a suicide attempt. In univariate logistic regression analyses, previous suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and depression-as well as low levels of achievement, low levels of financial positive future thoughts, and high levels of intrapersonal (thoughts about the individual and no one else) positive future thoughts predicted repeat suicide attempts. However, only previous suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, and high levels of intrapersonal positive future thinking were significant predictors in multivariate analyses. DISCUSSION: Positive future thinking has predictive utility over time; however, the content of the thinking affects the direction and strength of the positive future thinking-suicidal behavior relationship. Future research is required to understand the mechanisms that link high levels of intrapersonal positive future thinking to suicide risk and how intrapersonal thinking should be targeted in treatment interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0037846

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Reasons for living, attainable positive future thinking, adaptive goal pursuit, belongingness or connectedness are motivational moderators that buffer against the emergence of suicidal ideation and intent.

    “Reasons for living [46], attainable positive future thinking [47,48], adaptive goal pursuit [49], belongingness [12] or connectedness [50] are MMs as they are thought to buffer against the emergence of suicidal ideation and intent”

    From The integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as [48]

    The paper reports that positive future thinking can be protective in the hours following a suicide attempt and suggests that making future expectations attainable may help reduce risk (Discussion; Discussion > Implications, pages unavailable). It did not assess attainability or establish that attainable thinking moderates the emergence of suicidal ideation and intent; the latter is a proposed mechanism, not a demonstrated finding. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Williams J. M. G. (2001). The cry of pain. London, England: Penguin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Connor, R. C., Smyth, R., & Williams, J. M. G.
Affiliations
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2015-02
Volume
83
Issue
1
Pages
169-176
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2113746916
Cited by
86
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Scottish Government (CZH/4/449)
  • Wellcome Trust (GRO67797)
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
repeated suicide attempts, suicide attempters, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, suicidal intent, depression, hospital readmission, suicide risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk, Self Concept, Suicide, Attempted, Thinking, Self-Injurious Behavior, Young Adult, Suicidal Ideation, Hope

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