CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Do neurocognitive abilities distinguish suicide attempters from suicide ideators? A systematic review of an emerging research area.

Saffer, Boaz Y., Klonsky, E. David·2018·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
DOI 10.1111/cpsp.12227
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent findings suggest that neurocognitive deficits may hasten progression from suicidal thoughts to behavior. To test this proposition, we examined whether neurocognitive deficits distinguish individuals who have attempted suicide (attempters) from those who have considered suicide but never attempted (ideators). A comprehensive literature search yielded 14 studies comparing attempters to ideators on a range of neurocognitive abilities. In general, attempters and ideators scored comparably across neurocognitive abilities (median Hedges' g = −.18). An exception was a moderate difference for inhibition and decision making (median Hedges' g = −.50 and g = −.49, respectively). Results suggest that some neurocognitive abilities might help explain the transition from suicidal thoughts to suicide attempts. However, findings are regarded as suggestive, given the small number of studies, few cross-study examinations of neurocognitive domains, and variability in sample characteristics. Recommendations for future research are included.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cpsp.12227

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Few of these findings have been replicated, which is partly due to the small number of studies comparing ideators with attempters, and inconsistency in their methods resulting from the use of different measures to assess the same constructs.

    “However, few of these findings have been replicated, which is partly due to the small number of studies comparing ideators with attempters, and inconsistency in their methods resulting from the use of different measures to assess the same constructs (Saffer and Klonsky, 2018).”

    From The Psychological Pathway to Suicide Attempts: A Strategy of Control Without Awareness (2021) · cites this paper as Saffer and Klonsky, 2018

  • Suicide ideators and attempters differ in their ability to think through consequences of their actions and make decisions.

    “Suicide ideators and attempters differ in their ability to think through consequences of their actions and make decisions (Klonsky and May, 2010; Saffer and Klonsky, 2018), both of which involve mentally simulating future events (Gilbert and Wilson, 2007).”

    From The Psychological Pathway to Suicide Attempts: A Strategy of Control Without Awareness (2021) · cites this paper as Saffer and Klonsky, 2018

  • These findings may also be linked to differences in ability to make decisions and solve problems, since both of these processes are likely to involve imagining future events, and therefore may also affect awareness of consequences.

    “These findings may also be linked to differences in ability to make decisions and solve problems (Schotte and Clum, 1987; Saffer and Klonsky, 2018), since both of these processes are likely to involve imagining future events (Gilbert and Wilson, 2007; Schacter et al., 2008, 2012; Schacter, 2012), and therefore may also affect awareness of consequences.”

    From The Psychological Pathway to Suicide Attempts: A Strategy of Control Without Awareness (2021) · cites this paper as Saffer and Klonsky, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saffer, B. Y., & Klonsky, E. D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Klonsky, E. David
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-01-28
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
e12227
ISSN
0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/cpsp.12227
OpenAlex
W2789914404
Cited by
72
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
suicide attempters, neurocognitive impairment, cognitive ability, inhibition, decision-making, suicide risk

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