Time to Change Direction in Suicide Research

Hjelmeland, Heidi; Knizek, Birthe Loa

doi:10.1002/9781118903223.ch39

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative studies like the present one, are able to present more nuanced and contextualized pictures of what lies behind suicidal behavior compared to what quantitative risk factor research is able to. In qualitative studies, some of the complexity and individual variability involved in suicidal behavior becomes apparent [20]. Such studies contribute to question the relevance of reductionist theories like the IPTS, which posits that suicide can be explained by three factors only (acquired capability to enact lethal self-harm in addition to thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such research is able to take more of the context and actual life situation of individuals into consideration in the analysis, compared to what quantitative risk factor research is able to [8, 20]. Qualitative research also allows us to focus on the individual and to highlight contextualized individual differences in circumstances related to suicidality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To die or not to die: a qualitative study of men’s suicidality in Norway

Knizek

Hjelmeland

2018

BMC Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious research has shown that men who adhere to traditional beliefs about masculinity have increased health risks compared to those who do not. Single marital status, unemployment, retirement, and physical illness are commonly known risk factors for male suicidal behavior. Most men struggling with these risk factors are, however, not suicidal. To find out more about what makes some men vulnerable to suicidal behavior, risk factors must be analyzed in light of men’s life history as well as the social context where they live their masculinity.MethodWe conducted semi-structured qualitative in-depth interviews with 15 men (20–76 years old) who were admitted to hospital after a suicidal act. We analyzed the data by means of qualitative content analysis with a directed approach. The analysis was directed by the participants’ reports on whether they had wanted to die or not at the time of the suicidal act. On this basis, they were divided into two groups: a “to die” and a “not to die” group. We then analyzed each group separately before comparing them.ResultsIn both groups, the main reason or trigger for the suicidal act were problems in intimate relationships. These problems were complex and connected to the men’s lived masculinity, ranging from shame, or tainted masculine honor, to taking responsibility as a man for the wife. Some men pointed to pain and ennui as reasons or triggers for their suicidal act. Only one in the “not to die” group took full responsibility for the suicidal act, whereas all but one did the same in the “to die” group. The men not taking responsibility described the suicidal act as involuntary because of either alcohol or a kind of “black-out”. Not taking responsibility for the act may be a way of preserving masculine identity.ConclusionRelationship problems are the main reason or trigger of the suicidal act for most participants, but in very different ways, mirroring lived masculinity. The most striking finding is the uniqueness of each story, questioning the utility of standardized suicide prevention efforts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To die or not to die: a qualitative study of men’s suicidality in Norway

Knizek

Hjelmeland

2018

BMC Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of publications in mainstream sociology journals in the US found that only 3% addressed suicide (Wray et al, 2011). Conversely, within suicidology journals – an ostensibly multidisciplinary field – psychiatric and psychological research dominates, quantitative approaches are privileged, and sociological work is in a clear minority (Abrutyn and Mueller, 2014; Hjelmeland, 2015; Hjelmeland and Knizek, 2016; Marsh, 2010).…”

Section: The Curious Position Of Sociology In Suicide Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As sociologists working on suicide readily acknowledge (Abrutyn, 2017), the study of suicide in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is overwhelmingly dominated by ‘psy’ sciences and by biology – seeking answers to suicidal ‘impulses’ and ‘risk profiles’ in genetics, epigenetics, hormones, neurochemicals and synapses (Hjelmeland and Knizek, 2016). This biological tendency is undoubtedly related to the dominance of psychiatry within the multidisciplinary field of suicidology (Marsh, 2010), and to the concomitant valorization of biological, neurobiological, and genetic research in psychiatry (Insel, 2014; Pickersgill et al, 2013; Rose, 2013).…”

Section: The Curious Position Of Sociology In Suicide Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further criticism which has been levelled at psychological models of suicide, which draw largely on quantitative evidence, is their linearity, and what Hjelmeland and Knizek (2016) refer to as ‘cause and effect thinking’. Interestingly, the literature discussed in this paper evidenced such thinking across psychological, sociological and qualitative literatures.…”

Section: Building On Intersections In Future Suicide Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socioeconomic inequalities of suicide: Sociological and psychological intersections

Chandler

2019

European Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide is complex; yet suicide research is dominated by ‘psy’ disciplines which can falter when seeking to explain social patterning of suicide rates, and how this relates to individual actions. This article discusses a multidisciplinary report which aimed to advance understandings of socioeconomic inequalities in suicide rates in the UK. Contrasts are drawn between health psychology and sociology. Important intersections are highlighted, including a lack of attention to socioeconomic inequalities, and an emphasis on adverse life experiences and emotions to understand inequalities and suicide. There are also curious disconnects, both within and between relevant psychological and sociological perspectives. The article argues that there are significant gaps in existing theorization regarding suicide, which can only be addressed through meaningful inter-disciplinary collaborations between sociologists, psychologists and others. Current theorization in mainstream suicide research is limited by its failure to engage with enduring, yet vitally important sociological debates regarding structure and agency, nature and culture.

show abstract

An Integrated General Theory of Psychopathology and Suicide

Soper

2023

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents biological meta-theory that is intended to serve as a shared key to progress in psychiatry and suicidology. It argues that diverse forms of psychopathology, widely believed to cause suicide, may instead manifest the organism’s last-ditch efforts to avoid that lethal outcome. The analysis elaborates on the pain-brain theory, which views suicide as a costly by-product of human sapience, with the cost managed by serial lines of evolved anti-suicide defenses. The last of these, emergency interventions that function to block the enacting of suicidal ideas, are hypothesized to display in an array of psychiatric phenomena, including mood disorders, substance and behavioral addictions, and psychoses.The etiology of psychiatric syndromes is explained in three parts. First, psychopathology associates with suicidal ideation because the two outcomes share a causal root: the individual’s experience of chronic psychological pain (psychache), subject to a threshold of intellectual maturation. An evolved system utilizes these inputs to evaluate the risk of suicide and to release commensurately severe countermeasures, which manifest non-specifically as psychopathology. Second, the configuration of symptoms is determined by other aspects of individual differences: reflecting contextual needs, individualized blends of motivational and/or cognitive modifications seek to make lethal escape unnecessary and/or impracticable. Third, psychiatric syndromes can be understood as often-observed, heterogeneous clusters of anti-suicide symptoms, combined with psychache and side effects.The model integrates ultimate and proximate explanation, aligns with the epidemiological record, and yields testable predictions. It offers foundations for advancing research, policy, and clinical practice in suicide prevention and mental health.

show abstract

Time to Change Direction in Suicide Research

Cited by 20 publications

References 37 publications

To die or not to die: a qualitative study of men’s suicidality in Norway

To die or not to die: a qualitative study of men’s suicidality in Norway

Socioeconomic inequalities of suicide: Sociological and psychological intersections

An Integrated General Theory of Psychopathology and Suicide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About