CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

The Approval of Suicide: A Social‐Psychological Model

Open access
Agnew, Robert·1998·Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
DOI 10.1111/j.1943-278x.1998.tb00640.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article develops and tests a model that seeks to explain individual variation in the approval of suicide. The model draws on the three leading theories of crime/deviance: strain, social learning, and social control theories. It is predicted that individuals will be most approving of suicide when (1) they have had major life problems that could not be solved through conventional channels, (2) they were taught or exposed to beliefs that favored or were conducive to suicide, and (3) they are not strongly attached or committed to conventional individuals and groups. These predictions are explored with data from the 1990 and 1991 General Social Surveys, based on a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States. The results provide partial support for the predictions, especially the second prediction, with the strongest correlates of suicide approval being education, political liberalism, and a set of religion variables.

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 · 10.1111/j.1943-278x.1998.tb00640.x

Cites

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?

  • The vast majority of papers have found an inverse association between individual-level religiosity and risk of deviant behavior.

    “The vast majority of papers have found an inverse association-the greater the individual-level religiosity, the lower the risk of deviant behavior (see Agnew 1998;Baier and Wright 2001;Tittle and Welch 1983).”

    From The Effect of Religiosity on Tax Fraud Acceptability: A Cross‐National Analysis (2006) · cites this paper as Agnew 1998

    The Stage 2: Final Regression Results section says previous studies usually found an inverse relationship between religious measures and suicide approval, and this study finds similar associations. But the cited paper addresses approval of suicide, not the risk of deviant behavior generally; it does not establish the claim about the vast majority of papers across that broader topic. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Women are generally more conservative in their beliefs and attitudes regarding the acceptability of deviance.

    “Women are generally more conservative in their beliefs and attitudes regarding the acceptability of deviance (e.g., Agnew 1998;Stack 1998).”

    From The Effect of Religiosity on Tax Fraud Acceptability: A Cross‐National Analysis (2006) · cites this paper as Agnew 1998

    The Social Control section reports that men tend to be more approving of suicide than women, although sex differences are typically slight. That supports a narrower claim about one form of deviance, not the broader claim that women are generally more conservative about the acceptability of deviance. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Blumenthal & D. Kupfer (Eds.), Suicide ouer the life cycle (pp. 39-96). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
  2. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
  3. Agnew, R. (1994). The techniques of neutralization and violence. Criminology, 32(4), 555-580.
  4. Agnew, R. (1995). Testing the leading crime theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(4), 363-398.
  5. Blumenthal, S., & Kupfer, D. (1990). Suicide ouer the life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
  6. Brent, D., Perper, J., Moritz, G., Allman, C., Sch- weers, J., Rith, C., Balach, L., Canobbio, R., & Liotus, L. (1993). Psychiatric sequelae to the loss of an adolescent peer to suicide. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy- chiatry, 32(3), 509-513.
  7. Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: Free Press.
  8. Davidson, L., & Gould, M. (1989). Contagion as a risk factor for youth suicide. In L. Davidson & M. Linnoila (Eds.), Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide: Volume 2. Risk factors for youth suicide (pp. 88-109). Washington, DC: U S . Gov- ernment Printing Office.
  9. DeWilde, E., Kienhorst, I., Diekstra, R., & Wolters, W. (1993). The specificity of psychological charac- teristics of adolescent suicide attempters. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(1), 51-59.
  10. Domino, G., Cohen, A,, & Gonzalez, R. (1981). Jewish and Christian attitudes on suicide. Journal ofReli- gion and Health, 20(3), 201-207.
  11. Domino, G., & Miller, K. (1992). Religiosity and atti- tudes toward suicide. Omega, 25(4), 271-282.
  12. Dorwant, R., & Chartack, L. (1989). Suicide: A public health perspective. In D. Jacobs & H. Brown (Eds.), Suicide: Understanding and responding (pp. 31- 55). Madison, C T International Universities Press.
  13. Finlay, B. (1985). Right to life vs. right to die: Some correlates of euthanasia attitudes. Sociology and Social Research, 69(4), 548-560.
  14. Ginsburg, G. (1971). Public conceptions and attitudes about suicide. Journal ofHealth and Social Behau- ior, 12, 200-207.
  15. Heise, D. (1975). Causal analysis. New York: Wiley.
  16. Henslin, J . (1972). Strategies of adjustment: An eth- nomethodological approach to the study of guilt and suicide. In A. Cain (Ed.), Survivors of suicide (pp. 215-2271, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. 8-18.
  17. 1943278x, 1998, 2, · DOI
  18. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  19. Hoelter, J . (1979). Religiosity, fear of death and sui- cide acceptability. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 9(3), 163-172.
  20. Huffine, C. (1989). Social and cultural risk factors for youth suicide. In L. Davidson & M. Linnoila (Eds.), Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide: Volume 2. Risk factors for youth suicide. (pp. 56-70). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
  21. Jacobs, D., & Brown, H. (1989). Suicide: Understand- ing and responding. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
  22. Johnson, D., Fitch, S., Alston, J., & McIntosh, W. (1980). Acceptance of conditional suicide and eu- thanasia among adult americans. Suicide and Life Threatening Behauior, 10(3), 157-166.
  23. Ketelaar, T., & OHara, M. (1989). Meaning of the concept "suicide" and risk for attempted suicide. Journal of Social and Clinical Psycholog,y, 8(4), 393-399.
  24. Limbacher, M., &Domino, G. (1985-1986). Attitudes toward suicide among attempters, contemplators, and nonattempters. Omega, 16(4), 325-334.
  25. Maris, R. (1981). Pathways to suicide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  26. Maris, R. (1989). The social relations of suicide. In D. Jacobs & H. Brown (Eds.), Suicide: Understanding and responding (pp. 87-125).
  27. Maris, R. (1992). Overview of the study of suicide assessment and prediction. In R. Maris, A. Ber- man, J. Maltsberger, & R. Yufir (Eds.), Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 3-22). New York: Guilford Press.
  28. Maris, R., Berman, A,, Maltsberger, J., & Yufit, R. (1992). Assessment and prediction of suicide. New York: Guilford Press.
  29. Minear, J., & Brush, L. (1980-1981). The correlations of attitudes toward suicide with death anxiety, reli- giosity, and personal closeness to suicide. Omega, 11(4), 317-324.
  30. Ostheimer, J . (1980). The polls: Changing attitudes toward euthanasia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(1), 123-128. 24( l), 75-79.
  31. Paykel, E. (1989). Stress and life events. In L. David- son & M. Linnoila (Eds.), Report ofthe Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide: Volume 2. Risk factors for youth suicide (pp. 110-130). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  32. Philips, D., Lesyna, K., & Paight, D. (1992). Suicide and the media. In R. Maris, A. Berman, J. Malts- berger, & R. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and predic- tion of suicide (pp. 499-519). New York: Guilford Press.
  33. Plutchik, R., & Van Praag, H. (1994). Suicide risk: Amplifiers and attenuators. In M. Hillbrand & N. Pallone (Eds.), The psychobiology of aggression: Engines, measurement, and control (pp. 173-186). New York: Haworth Press.
  34. Pokorny, A. (1992). Prediction of suicide in psychiat- ric patients: Report of a prospective study. In R. Maris, A. Berman, J. Maltsberger, & R. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 105-129). New York: Guilford Press.
  35. Sawyer, D., & Sobal, J. (1987). Public attitudes to- ward suicide: Demographic and ideological corre- lates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(1), 92-101.
  36. Schotte, D., & Clum, G. (1982). Suicide ideation in a college population: A test of a model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 690- 696.
  37. Shneidman, E. (1989). Overview: A multidimen- sional approach to suicide. In D. Jacobs & H. Brown (Eds.), Suicide: Understanding and responding (pp. 1-30). Madison, C T International Universi- ties Press.
  38. Siegel, K. (1986). Psychosocial aspects of rational suicide. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 15(3), 4 0 5 4 1
  39. Singh, B. (1979). Correlates of attitudes toward eu- thanasia. Social Biology, 26(3), 247-254.
  40. Singh, B., Williams, J., & Ryther, B. (1986). Public approval of suicide: A situational analysis. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 16(4), 4 0 9 4 1
  41. Smith, P., Range, L., & Ulmer, A. (1991-1992). Belief in afterlife as a buffer in suicidal and other be- reavement. Omega, 24(3), 217-225.
  42. Stack, S. (1982). Suicide: A decade review ofthe socio- logical literature. Deviant Behavior, 4, 41-66.
  43. Stack, S. (1983). The effect of religious commitment on suicide: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 362-374.
  44. Stack, S. (1992). Marriage, family, religion, and sui- cide. In R. Maris, A. Berman, J. Maltsberger, & R. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 540-5521, New York: Guilford Press.
  45. Stack, S. (1996a). Does being a parent affect suicide ideology? Omega, 34(1), 71-80.
  46. Stack, S., & Wasserman, I. (1992). The effect of reli- gion on suicide ideology: An analysis of the net- works perspective. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(4), 457-466.
  47. Stack, S., & Wasserman, I. (1995). The effect of mar- riage, family, and religious ties on african american suicide ideology. Journal ofMarriage and the Fam- ily, 57, 215-222.
  48. 1943278x, 1998, 2, effects of religion and feminism on suicide ideol- ogy: An analysis of national survey data. Jour- nal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 33(2), 110- 121. · DOI
  49. H. (1994). The currents of lethal violence. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  50. Weishaar, M., & Beck, A. (1992). Clinical and cogni- tive predictors of suicide. In R. Maris, A. Berman, J. Maltsberger, & R. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and prediction ofsuicide (pp. 467483). New York: Guil- ford Press.
  51. Wheeler, I. (1993-1994). The role of meaning and purpose in life in bereaved parents associated with a self-help group: Compassionate friends. Omega, 28(4), 261-271.
  52. Yufit, R., & Bongar, B. (1992). Suicide, stress, and coping with life events. In R. Mans, A. Berman, J. Maltsberger, & R. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and prediction ofsuicide (pp. 553-573). New York: Guil- ford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agnew, R.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Agnew, Robert
Venue
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
205-225
ISSN
  • 0363-0234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-278X
DOI
10.1111/j.1943-278x.1998.tb00640.x
OpenAlex
W1910535786
Cited by
63
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4595 d)
Locations
  • Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
attitudes toward suicide, strain theory, social learning theory, social control theory, deviance, life problems, social attachment, political liberalism, interindividual variability
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude to Death, Data Collection, Demography, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Life Change Events, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Self Concept, Social Conformity, Social Control, Informal, Social Values, Sociometric Techniques, Stress, Psychological, Suicide, United States

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