Mental imagery of suicide and non-suicidal self-injury: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Hannah R. Lawrence*, Emma G. Balkind, Julie L. Ji, Taylor A. Burke, Richard T. Liu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background The vast majority of research on, and clinical assessment of, cognitions related to suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has focused on verbal thoughts. And yet, mental imagery is more realistic and emotionally arousing than verbal thoughts. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis documenting the prevalence of suicidal and NSSI mental imagery and describing the content and characteristics of suicidal and NSSI mental imagery, links between suicidal and NSSI mental imagery and suicidal and NSSI behavior, and how to intervene on suicidal and NSSI mental imagery. Studies published through December 17, 2022 were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Results Twenty-three articles were included. Prevalence rates of suicidal (73.56%) and NSSI (84.33%) mental imagery were high among clinical samples. Self-harm mental imagery commonly depicts engagement in self-harm behavior and is experienced as vivid, realistic, and preoccupying. When experimentally induced, self-harm mental imagery reduces physiological and affective arousal. Preliminary evidence suggests that suicidal mental imagery is associated with suicidal behavior. Conclusions Suicidal and NSSI mental imagery are highly prevalent and may be associated with heightened risk for self-harm behavior. Assessments and interventions for self-harm should consider incorporating and addressing suicidal and NSSI mental imagery to mitigate risk.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages0
JournalClinical Psychology Review
Volume103
Issue number0
Early online date12 Jun 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mental imagery of suicide and non-suicidal self-injury: A meta-analysis and systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this