Cited by 1,231Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 240 of the 241 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 46 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade of cross-national research.

Open access

Abstract

Over the past decade, the interpersonal theory of suicide has contributed to substantial advances in the scientific and clinical understanding of suicide and related conditions. The interpersonal theory of suicide posits that suicidal desire emerges when individuals experience intractable feelings of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness and near-lethal or lethal suicidal behavior occurs in the presence of suicidal desire and capability for suicide. A growing number of studies have tested these posited pathways in various samples; however, these findings have yet to be evaluated meta-analytically. This paper aimed to (a) conduct a systematic review of the unpublished and published, peer-reviewed literature examining the relationship between interpersonal theory constructs and suicidal thoughts and behaviors, (b) conduct meta-analyses testing the interpersonal theory hypotheses, and (c) evaluate the influence of various moderators on these relationships. Four electronic bibliographic databases were searched through the end of March, 2016: PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Hypothesis-driven meta-analyses using random effects models were conducted using 122 distinct unpublished and published samples. Findings supported the interpersonal theory: the interaction between thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness was significantly associated with suicidal ideation; and the interaction between thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000123

Cites

240 of 240 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

1 of 46 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 145 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 66
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 61
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
113 of 113
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The constructs of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are unidimensional and multifaceted.

    “Each of these constructs is conceptualized as unidimensional and multifaceted.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The INQ does not measure hopelessness about perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness.

    “which does not measure hopelessness about perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Suicide attempt history is often not normally distributed, especially in community samples.

    “Suicide attempt history is often not normally distributed, especially in community samples.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are multifaceted, and the INQ captures only one facet of each.

    “thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are multifaceted and the INQ only captures one facet of each.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Online protocols provide participants with greater privacy.

    “online protocols may provide participants with greater privacy”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Suicide risk measures such as the SBQ-R do not distinguish between suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviors.

    “suicide risk measures (e.g., SBQ-R) do not delineate between suicidal ideation and behaviors”
6 of 6

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentz = 26.26reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “(z = 26.26, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 10.19reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “(z = 10.19, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 16.21reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “(z = 16.21, p < .001”

3 of 3

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Claim of no moderators conflicts with reported moderator result

    Major

    The Discussion says no significant moderators were found for models testing the main hypotheses. Results nevertheless report a significant sex-composition moderator for the model relating the two-way interaction to suicidal ideation.

  • An Egger-test confidence interval conflicts with its nonsignificant p-value

    Major

    The reported 95% confidence interval for this test excludes zero, but its reported two-sided p-value is 0.101. The text uses that p-value to classify the theory-hypothesis model as showing no publication bias.

  • Study-selection flowchart is assigned two figure numbers

    Minor

    The study-selection flowchart is identified as Figure 1 in Results but as Figure 2 in Methods.

  • Impact-factor moderator coefficient and standard error do not yield its z-value

    Minor

    Dividing the reported coefficient by its standard error gives 25, not the stated z-value of 2.03. Rounding at the printed precision cannot account for that gap.

    Reported 2.03 · recomputed 25

  • Cross-sectional study share changes between sections

    Minor

    The Results report that 92.3% of samples were cross-sectional, while the Discussion gives 93.1% for the same study design.

  • Discussion overlooks a significant hopelessness interaction

    Minor

    The Discussion says the proxy-hopelessness approach produced no significant effects, but Results report a significant association with suicidal ideation for that interaction.

  • Final article count does not follow the reported exclusions

    Minor

    The selection account identifies 153 remaining references and 17 subsequent exclusions. That leaves 136 references, not the reported 130 articles; no further six exclusions are stated.

    Reported 130 · recomputed 136

  • The review says both that every study used the INQ and that some did not

    Minor

    The discussion says all included studies used the INQ, but the results identify five samples that did not.

  • The study-selection account assigns different roles to the same 382 reports

    Minor

    The methods say 382 reports remained after the initial title-and-abstract screening. The results instead say 382 were screened and 229 were excluded at that stage.

  • The discussion overlooks reported moderators of main-hypothesis models

    Minor

    The results identify significant moderators for the two-way ideation model and the three-way attempt model. The discussion nevertheless says no significant moderators were found for models testing the main hypotheses.

  • A reported moderator z-score does not match its coefficient and standard error

    Minor

    Dividing the reported coefficient by its standard error gives 25, not 2.03. Rounding at the displayed precision cannot explain the difference.

    Reported 2.03 · recomputed 25

  • The printed heterogeneity formula disagrees with the reported result

    Minor

    Applied as printed, the I2 formula cannot produce the reported 97.3% from Q = 3515.1 and 97 studies. That result requires subtracting the degrees of freedom from Q before dividing by Q.

12 of 12

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 241 references

1 of the 241 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,221

Metadata

Authors
Chu, C., Buchman-Schmitt, J. M., Stanley, I. H., Hom, M. A., Tucker, R. P., Hagan, C. R., Rogers, M. L., Podlogar, M. C., Chiurliza, B., Ringer, F. B., Michaels, M. S., Patros, C. H. G., & Joiner, T. E.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Temple University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2017-12
Volume
143
Issue
12
Pages
1313-1345
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2766751125
Cited by
1,231
References
241
Citations by year
2026: 159 · 2025: 230 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 6
FWCI
11.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (acceptedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH093311-04)
  • Military Suicide Research Consortium (W81XWH-10-2-0181, W81XWH-16-2-0003)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Keywords
interpersonal theory of suicide, suicidal ideation, perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, previous suicide attempts, suicide risk, suicidal behavior
MeSH terms
Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Models, Psychological, Psychological Theory, Suicide, Internationality, Suicidal Ideation

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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