With suicide being a leading cause of death in the United States, research must aim to increase efficacious prevention methods. The purpose of the present study was to gain greater understanding of the difference between suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. Previous research emphasizes the role of hopelessness in attempts and ideation (Bagge, Lamis, Nadorff, & Osman, 2014 ). Yet while hopelessness offers predictive value to suicide attempt, it fails in discriminating between suicide attempters and suicide ideators. Thus the goal was to examine the possible influence of different types of hopelessness on suicidal ideation and attempt. The experience of hopelessness as a temporary feeling, or state, versus as an enduring emotion, or trait, was examined in this study. The State-Trait Hopelessness Scale and 4 suicidal thought and suicidal behavior questions were assessed. Results of logistic regression analysis supported the hypothesis that state and trait hopelessness were differentially associated with ideation and attempt. While trait hopelessness was significantly positively associated with responses to all 4 suicidality questions (p's < 0.001), state hopelessness was only positively related to responses to 1 ideation question (p < 0.01). In all, these results point to the importance of understanding the role of different types of hopelessness in differentiating suicidal ideation and attempt.

No abstract

No abstract

While research tends to focus on understanding risk factors associated with adverse childhood and adolescent experiences, there is growing empirical support within the field of human services to also focus on strengths and protective factors that bolster resilience in life. This study investigated the psychometrics of the Resilience Protective Factors Checklist (RPFC), which is a questionnaire that assists in the identification of protective factors empirically linked to resilience and positive outcomes. In addition, associations between protective factors, childhood adversity, and quality of life outcomes were examined. Participants were undergraduate college students ( n = 1,256). The results revealed good psychometric properties for the RPFC and the factor analysis supported the resilience structural model of three interrelated areas of protective factors - Individual, Family, and Community influences. All three areas of protection were positively correlated with all four domains of positive life outcomes (physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and a healthy environment) and negatively correlated with adverse childhood experiences. RPFC’s individual protective factors positively predicted physical health and psychological health outcomes, while the community protective factors positively predicted environmental health outcomes. In addition, the RPFC’s family protective factors moderated the path between adverse childhood experiences and social relationships. That is, for individuals who have experienced more adverse childhood experiences, those with higher levels of RPFC family protective factors had positive social relationship outcomes, while those with lower levels of family protective factors had negative social relationship outcomes. These findings lend support for the utilization of assessment measures for identifying and promoting protective factors that can buffer life adversity and heighten resilient positive outcomes.

No abstract