Past suicide attempt is associated with a weaker decision-making bias to actively escape from suicide-related stimuli.

IF 3.1 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Adam C Jaroszewski,Alexander J Millner,Samuel J Gershman,Peter J Franz,Kate H Bentley,Evan M Kleiman,Matthew K Nock
{"title":"Past suicide attempt is associated with a weaker decision-making bias to actively escape from suicide-related stimuli.","authors":"Adam C Jaroszewski,Alexander J Millner,Samuel J Gershman,Peter J Franz,Kate H Bentley,Evan M Kleiman,Matthew K Nock","doi":"10.1037/abn0000989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theory and evidence suggest that people attempt suicide to escape acute distress. However, little is known about why people select suicide instead of other ways to escape (e.g., alcohol/drug use). One possibility is that suicide-related stimuli in one's environment (e.g., suicide methods) bias this decision, particularly when such stimuli elicit little aversion. We tested whether suicide-related stimuli bias decisions to escape acute distress. We recruited 360 adults with past 3-month active suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB; n = 120), elevated psychiatric symptoms without STB (n = 152), or no symptoms/STB (n = 88). Participants explicitly rated personalized suicide pictures (e.g., pointing a gun up at oneself) and positive contrasts and completed a behavioral task, where they made decisions to escape an acutely distressing noise in relation to these stimuli. We used a computational model of task performance to capture latent biases hypothetically influencing decision making. We assessed STB 3 months later. Results indicated that people with a past suicide attempt exhibited much lower suicide aversion than others. In the behavioral task, the suicidal group made more impulsive escape decisions in relation to suicide versus positive stimuli. The computational model helped explain this effect, capturing a latent bias driven by the suicide stimuli. Within the suicidal group, weaker biases mediated the association between lower suicide aversion and higher odds of past suicide attempt. These results provide evidence of novel, specific, incrementally valid, and objectively assessed suicide-attempt correlate and suggest that decision science is useful for understanding mechanisms increasing risk for suicide and other escape-related phenomena involving stimulus-driven processes (e.g., substance misuse, and anxiety). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000989","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theory and evidence suggest that people attempt suicide to escape acute distress. However, little is known about why people select suicide instead of other ways to escape (e.g., alcohol/drug use). One possibility is that suicide-related stimuli in one's environment (e.g., suicide methods) bias this decision, particularly when such stimuli elicit little aversion. We tested whether suicide-related stimuli bias decisions to escape acute distress. We recruited 360 adults with past 3-month active suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB; n = 120), elevated psychiatric symptoms without STB (n = 152), or no symptoms/STB (n = 88). Participants explicitly rated personalized suicide pictures (e.g., pointing a gun up at oneself) and positive contrasts and completed a behavioral task, where they made decisions to escape an acutely distressing noise in relation to these stimuli. We used a computational model of task performance to capture latent biases hypothetically influencing decision making. We assessed STB 3 months later. Results indicated that people with a past suicide attempt exhibited much lower suicide aversion than others. In the behavioral task, the suicidal group made more impulsive escape decisions in relation to suicide versus positive stimuli. The computational model helped explain this effect, capturing a latent bias driven by the suicide stimuli. Within the suicidal group, weaker biases mediated the association between lower suicide aversion and higher odds of past suicide attempt. These results provide evidence of novel, specific, incrementally valid, and objectively assessed suicide-attempt correlate and suggest that decision science is useful for understanding mechanisms increasing risk for suicide and other escape-related phenomena involving stimulus-driven processes (e.g., substance misuse, and anxiety). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
过去的自杀企图与较弱的积极逃避自杀相关刺激的决策偏见有关。
理论和证据表明,人们试图自杀是为了逃避严重的痛苦。然而,人们对为什么选择自杀而不是其他逃避方式(例如,酗酒/吸毒)知之甚少。一种可能性是,在一个人的环境中,与自杀相关的刺激(例如,自杀方法)会使这个决定产生偏差,特别是当这种刺激引起的厌恶感很小的时候。我们测试了与自杀相关的刺激是否会影响逃离急性痛苦的决定。我们招募了360名过去3个月有积极自杀想法和行为的成年人(STB;n = 120),无STB的精神症状升高(n = 152),或无症状/STB (n = 88)。参与者明确地对个性化的自杀图片(例如,用枪指着自己)和积极的对比进行评级,并完成一项行为任务,在这项任务中,他们决定逃离与这些刺激有关的极度痛苦的噪音。我们使用任务绩效的计算模型来捕捉潜在的偏见,假设影响决策。3个月后对STB进行评估。结果表明,过去有自杀企图的人比其他人表现出更低的自杀厌恶感。在行为任务中,与积极刺激相比,自杀组做出了更多的冲动逃避决定。计算模型帮助解释了这一效应,捕获了由自杀刺激驱动的潜在偏见。在自杀组中,较弱的偏见调解了较低的自杀厌恶和较高的过去自杀企图之间的联系。这些结果提供了新的、具体的、逐渐有效的、客观评估的自杀与企图相关的证据,并表明决策科学有助于理解增加自杀风险的机制和其他涉及刺激驱动过程(如物质滥用和焦虑)的逃避相关现象。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信