Cited by 21Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesQ Methodology ApplicationsPsychology and Mental Health

Research Report: Self-harming behaviour: from lay perceptions to clinical practice

Open access
Rayner, Gillian, Warner, Sam·2003·Counselling Psychology Quarterly

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1080/0951507032000156862

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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).”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rayner, G., & Warner, S.
Affiliations
  • Lecturer in Nursing
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Rayner, Gillian
Venue
Counselling Psychology Quarterly
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
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