地铁自杀:心理动力学方面。

Frederick G. Guggenheim, Avery D. Weisman
{"title":"地铁自杀:心理动力学方面。","authors":"Frederick G. Guggenheim, Avery D. Weisman","doi":"10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT: Fifty‐one cases of suicide attempts in the subway have been investigated to examine the question of whether the method used has psychodynamic significance or is merely adventitious. We found that no single characteristic distinguished subway suicide from all other suicide modalities, although as a group the subway cases had a higher proportion of psychotic and previously suicidal patients than other series quoted in the literature. However, there were important differences between subway suicide cases seeking a “traumatic” death (jumping in front of a train; lying across the track awaiting destruction) and those seeking a “nontraumatic” death (electrocution on the live “third rail”). The traumatic group had histories of exposure to violence, other traumatic suicide attempts, hostile or destructive delusions, and many “destroy” words on psychological test protocols. The smaller nontraumatic group had no such history of exposure to violence; their previous suicide attempts were nontraumatic; delusions, when present, were not menacing; and the psychological tests showed more “escape” words than “destroy” words.","PeriodicalId":78416,"journal":{"name":"Life-threatening behavior","volume":"4 1 1","pages":"43-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1974-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suicide in the subway: psychodynamic aspects.\",\"authors\":\"Frederick G. Guggenheim, Avery D. Weisman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT: Fifty‐one cases of suicide attempts in the subway have been investigated to examine the question of whether the method used has psychodynamic significance or is merely adventitious. We found that no single characteristic distinguished subway suicide from all other suicide modalities, although as a group the subway cases had a higher proportion of psychotic and previously suicidal patients than other series quoted in the literature. However, there were important differences between subway suicide cases seeking a “traumatic” death (jumping in front of a train; lying across the track awaiting destruction) and those seeking a “nontraumatic” death (electrocution on the live “third rail”). The traumatic group had histories of exposure to violence, other traumatic suicide attempts, hostile or destructive delusions, and many “destroy” words on psychological test protocols. The smaller nontraumatic group had no such history of exposure to violence; their previous suicide attempts were nontraumatic; delusions, when present, were not menacing; and the psychological tests showed more “escape” words than “destroy” words.\",\"PeriodicalId\":78416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life-threatening behavior\",\"volume\":\"4 1 1\",\"pages\":\"43-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1974-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life-threatening behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life-threatening behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1943-278X.1974.TB00537.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要:本文调查了51例地铁自杀未遂案例,以探讨自杀方法是否具有心理动力学意义,还是仅仅是偶然的。我们发现,地铁自杀与其他自杀方式并没有单一的区别,尽管作为一个群体,地铁案例中精神病患者和有自杀倾向的患者比例高于文献中引用的其他系列。然而,寻求“创伤性”死亡的地铁自杀案件(在火车前跳下去;躺在铁轨上等待毁灭)和那些寻求“非创伤性”死亡(在“第三轨”上触电)的人。创伤组有暴力史,其他创伤性自杀企图,敌意或破坏性妄想,心理测试协议中有许多“毁灭”词。人数较少的非创伤组没有这种暴力暴露史;他们之前的自杀企图都是非创伤性的;幻觉出现时,并不具有威胁性;心理测试显示,“逃避”类词汇比“破坏”类词汇更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Suicide in the subway: psychodynamic aspects.
ABSTRACT: Fifty‐one cases of suicide attempts in the subway have been investigated to examine the question of whether the method used has psychodynamic significance or is merely adventitious. We found that no single characteristic distinguished subway suicide from all other suicide modalities, although as a group the subway cases had a higher proportion of psychotic and previously suicidal patients than other series quoted in the literature. However, there were important differences between subway suicide cases seeking a “traumatic” death (jumping in front of a train; lying across the track awaiting destruction) and those seeking a “nontraumatic” death (electrocution on the live “third rail”). The traumatic group had histories of exposure to violence, other traumatic suicide attempts, hostile or destructive delusions, and many “destroy” words on psychological test protocols. The smaller nontraumatic group had no such history of exposure to violence; their previous suicide attempts were nontraumatic; delusions, when present, were not menacing; and the psychological tests showed more “escape” words than “destroy” words.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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