Preferences in Information Processing and suicide: Results from a young adult health survey in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Background: Suicide prevention literature currently suffers from inconsistent measurement and incomplete theoretical development. Aims: Using a recommended suicide measurement approach for epidemiological studies (i.e., the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised; SBQ-R), the present investigation assessed United Kingdom young adult suicide prevalence rates. This study also investigated the utility of a Preferences in Information Processing (PIP) model of suicide in identifying those at increased odds for elevated suicide risk, as well as lifetime ideation and attempt. Method: A cross-sectional mental health and well-being survey study (n=414) was conducted. Results: The prevalence rates of elevated risk (49.8%), lifetime ideation only (55.3%), and lifetime attempt (13.5%) were high. Bivariate associations demonstrated that elevated depression, anxiety, and Need for Affect (NFA) Avoidance were associated with worsened suicide outcomes, whereas elevated Need for Cognition (NFC) was associated with decreased suicide risk. Logistic regression results identified depression and NFA Avoidance as the strongest predictors of elevated suicide risk. Multinomial logistic regression results established several PIP-based moderation effects for depression and anxiety in which NFA Approach and NFC differentially influenced odds of suicide attempt group membership. Conclusions: The SBQ-R is an appropriate tool for UK young adult suicide research. NFA and NFC demonstrated potential for inclusion in young adult suicide prevention programming. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the PIP model of suicide and effectiveness of proposed theory-based approaches to suicide prevention.

Preferences in Information Processing, Marginalized Identity, and Non-Monogamy: Understanding Factors in Suicide-Related Behavior among Members of the Alternative Sexuality Community

“…NFA-related findings largely replicated prior PIP studies of suicide. For instance, bivariate NFA Avoidance patterns are consistent with prior findings [50,55,58]. Interestingly, when the entire PIP model is accounted for (i.e., NFA and NFC main and moderating effects), NFA Approach was the only PIP-supported hypothesis.…”

“…Elevated NFA Avoidance amplified the negative impact of depression and NFC on lifetime SRB among college students [50]. Among adults in the United Kingdom, NFA Approach mitigated the negative effects of depression on suicidal ideation, whereas NFC demonstrated mixed moderation patterns depending on the suicide risk factor [58]. Most germane to the current study, the only PIP model facet examined in a sample of NCSF members was NFA [20].…”

“…SRB is a documented mental health problem in the alternative sexuality community [20], with existing literature highlighting mental health [21], stigma-associated emotions [13], and acquired capability [12] as risk factors. The present study employed relationship orientation (e.g., non-monogamy) [34,66], health inequity/marginalized identity [5,37], and PIP [50,58] to further investigate factors associated with SRB among members of the alternative sexuality community. As is discussed in the following sections, all three perspectives, plus known mental health and suicide exposure-related factors, added value in understanding SRB.…”

“…A series of studies [20,50,57,58] have applied the PIP to suicide risk in non-clinical samples. The most robust main effect observed to date concerns NFA Avoidance as a risk factor for suicide [50,55,58], possibly through association with the development of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness [57]. NFA and NFC have both shown sample-specific moderating roles.…”

“…Total scores were generated via summation, ranging from 3 to 18, with higher scores representing higher engagement in suicidal behavior. Item 1 of the SBQ-R generates lifetime SRB subgroups [18]; this approach to categorization of suicide-related behaviors has been used in prior studies [58,60,61]. Cut scores indicate individuals at clinical risk, with a score of seven or greater used among non-clinical adult samples [18].…”