Research Report: Self-harming behaviour: from lay perceptions to clinical practice
Open accessAbstract
Self-harm is a complex phenomena that occurs in many different settings. Multi-factorial explanations predominate in the literature and accounts of treatment reflect this diversity, ranging through psychobiological and psycho-social theories. This study aims to identify, describe and interpret some of the accounts and understandings of self-harm from a cross section of the general population and then relate this to clinical practice. Q Methodology is used to explore various competing viewpoints of lay people in understanding and treating people who self-harm. Eight different accounts were produced from the Explanation Q-sort. All but the Biological account described self-harm as a coping strategy, utilized in response to feelings of helplessness following social interaction and were therefore psycho-social in nature. There were four treatment/policy viewpoints that were all psycho-social in nature. These were influenced by humanistic and cognitive types of therapy and were united by the importance of empathy, positive regard and empowerment. These viewpoints are fully explored in this study. Common themes and factors connecting the explanations and treatment Q-sorts are discussed. These findings are then discussed in terms of their implications to current working practice and further initiatives and research projects.
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?
Professionals may hold more negative attitudes towards self-harm than laypeople and, within a complex exchange, professionals and those who self-harm experience parallel interpersonal processes and adopt some similar defence mechanisms.
“Rayner and Warner (2003) suggest that professionals may in fact hold more negative attitudes towards self-harm than laypeople and propose that, within a complex exchange, professionals and those who self-harm experience parallel interpersonal processes and adopt some similar defence mechanisms (Rayner & Warne, 2016).”
From A multi‐method evaluation of a compassion‐focused cognitive behavioural psychotherapy group for people who self‐harm. (2022) · cites this paper as Rayner and Warner (2003)
Exploring the forms and functions of self-harm appeared to help participants recognise the cycle of shame when using self-injury.
“It is therefore interesting to find that exploring the forms and functions of self-harm appeared to help participants recognise the cycle of shame when using self-injury (Rayner & Warner, 2003).”
From A multi‐method evaluation of a compassion‐focused cognitive behavioural psychotherapy group for people who self‐harm. (2022) · cites this paper as Rayner & Warner, 2003
Cites
CORRELATING PERSONS INSTEAD OF TESTS
STEPHENSON, W. (1935) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb02022.x · Cited by 475 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Q methodology (Stevenson, 1935), a pattern analytic technique, has been chosen for this study as it allows access to layers of individually and collectively shared meaning without sacrificing ‘scientific rigour’.”
MethodThe Integrative Power of Cognitive Therapy
Alford, B. A., Beck, A. T., & Jones, J. V. (1997) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.11.4.309 · Cited by 400 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Cognitive Behavioural therapy can be percieved as Integrative and/or eclectic (Alford and Beck, 1997).”
BackgroundRyle, A., & Kerr, I. B. (2003) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.183.1.79 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rayner, G. C., Bowling, G., Bluff, L., Wright, K., Ashworth‐Lord, A., & Laird, C. (2022) · Counselling and Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/capr.12516 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Rayner, G., & Warner, S.
- Affiliations
- Lecturer in Nursing
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Rayner, Gillian
- Venue
- Counselling Psychology Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 305-329
- ISSN
- 0951-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3674
- OpenAlex
- W1997965067
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- usir.salford.ac.uk
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Counselling Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- University of Salford Institutional Repository (University of Salford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Q Methodology Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
- Keywords
- self-harm, lay perceptions, clinical practice, coping strategies, helplessness, biological explanation, treatment options, humanistic psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, empathy, positive regard, empowerment
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