MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344929949 · doi:10.1037/abn0000141

The role of interpersonal conflict and perceived social support in nonsuicidal self-injury in daily life.

2016· article· en· W2344929949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyInterpersonal communicationPsycINFOInterpersonal relationshipPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionInjury preventionClinical psychologySocial supportDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMEDLINEMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although accumulating microlongitudinal research has examined emotion regulatory models of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), few studies have examined how interpersonal contingencies influence daily NSSI behavior. Participants with repeated NSSI (N = 60) provided daily ratings of perceived social support, interpersonal conflict, and NSSI urges and behaviors for 14 days. Consistent with interpersonal models of NSSI, we hypothesized that participants would be more likely to engage in NSSI on days when they experienced high levels of interpersonal conflict, that NSSI acts that were revealed to others would be followed by desirable interpersonal changes (i.e., greater support, less conflict), and that these interpersonal changes would, in turn, predict stronger NSSI urges and more frequent NSSI behavior. Consistent with hypotheses, daily conflict was associated with stronger same-day NSSI urges and greater likelihood of NSSI acts. Perceived support increased following NSSI acts that had been revealed to others, but not unrevealed NSSI acts. This perceived support was, in turn, associated with a stronger NSSI urges and greater likelihood of engaging in NSSI on the following day. Moreover, participants whose NSSI was revealed to others engaged in more total NSSI acts during the diary period than those whose NSSI was not revealed to others. Inconsistent with hypotheses, interpersonal conflict did not decrease following NSSI, regardless of whether or not these acts were revealed to others. Together, these results provide preliminary support for interpersonal reinforcement models of NSSI and highlight the importance of expanding research in this area to include interpersonal contingencies that may influence this behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it