Defeat, Entrapment, and Hopelessness: Clarifying Interrelationships between Suicidogenic Constructs

D. Nicolas Oakey-Frost (), Emma H. Moscardini, Kirsten Russell, Susan Rasmussen, Robert J. Cramer and Raymond P. Tucker
Additional contact information
D. Nicolas Oakey-Frost: Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
Emma H. Moscardini: Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
Kirsten Russell: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 40 George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK
Susan Rasmussen: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 40 George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK
Robert J. Cramer: Department of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
Raymond P. Tucker: Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 17, 1-13

Abstract: Psychological theories of suicide posit conceptually similar constructs related to the development of suicidal thinking. These constructs often evince high-magnitude interrelationships across studies. Within these theories, defeat, entrapment and hopelessness standout as conceptually and quantitatively similar. Theoretical improvements may be facilitated through clarifying the subscale and item-level similarities among these constructs. Factor analytic and phenomenological work has demonstrated equivocal evidence for a distinction between defeat and entrapment; hopelessness is not typically analyzed together with defeat and entrapment despite evidence of large-magnitude interrelationships. This study explored the interrelationships among the foregoing constructs within a sample of undergraduate students ( N = 344) from two universities within the Southeastern United States. Participants, oversampled for lifetime history of suicidal ideation and attempts, completed an online cross-sectional survey assessing defeat, entrapment, hopelessness and SI. Exploratory factor and parallel analyses demonstrated support for a one factor solution when analyzed at subscale level of the three measures as well as when all items of the three measures were analyzed together. Ad hoc exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) bifactor results evinced support for the existence of a single, general factor at the item level. Item level communalities and bifactor fit indices suggest that hopelessness may be somewhat distinct from defeat and entrapment. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed in the context of study limitations.

Keywords: defeat; entrapment; hopelessness; suicidal ideation; factor structure; theory (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10518/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10518/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10518-:d:895878

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().