Suicidal Ideation in Relation to Loneliness, Peer Pressure and Self-Efficacy among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rates of suicide are not distributed equally throughout the general population. One important demographic marker of suicide risk is age. Globally, suicide rates tend to increase with age, although some countries such as Canada have also recently seen a secondary peak in young people aged 1524 years. The rates ranged from 0.9 per 100 000 in the group aged 514 years to 66.9 per 100 000 among people aged 75 years and older. In general, suicide rates among those aged 75 years and older are approximately three times higher than those of youngpeople aged 1524 years. This trend is found for both sexes, but is more marked among men. For women, suicide rates present differing patterns. In some cases, female suicide rates increase steadily with age, in others the rates peak in middle age, and in yet others, particularly in developing countries and among minority groups, female rates peak among young adults (Krug et al., 2002). Adolescent suicidal ideation and its relationship to other variables was tapped by a self-report questionnaire administered to 88 high school seniors. Eighteen percent responded positively to the statement sometimes I feel suicidal. Those who reported suicidal ideation were found to differ from those who did not on a number of variables, including family relationships (quality of relationship with mother, intimacy with parents, and closeness to siblings), family history of depression (maternal depression), peer relations (quality of peer relationships, popularity, and number of friends), emotional well-being (happiness, anger, and depression), drug use (cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine), and grade point average. Stepwise regression indicated that happiness explained 46% of the variance in suicidal ideation, and number of friends, anger, and marijuana use explained an additional 20%, for a total of 66% of the variance. While 34% of the variance remained unexplained, it is suggested that the questions used to measure these four variables be included in global screenings to identify adolescents at risk for suicidal ideation.LonelinessLoneliness is defined in various ways, but all definitions share the same conceptualization that this is an unpleasant, anxiety inducing subjective experience that is the outcome of inadequate social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). It results when a person's network of social relationships is deficient in some important ways, either qualitative or quantitatively. Quantitative aspects of the network include the number of people as well as the composition of the network (family, friends). Qualitative factors are related to the level of satisfaction with the number and composition of the network and with what the network offers. Loneliness may be either a persistent, life-long phenomenon, or it may last for shorter periods and be tied with different situational factors that hamper the maintenance of social relationshipsPeer pressureThe peer group's influence on leisure-time activities during adolescence is of paramount importance, and peers often set the standards for the adolescent's behavior. As adolescents spend more time with peers, they also participate in and create youth cultures, which in turn reinforce the meanings and values of the wider peer group (Larson et al., 2002). Peers create an important forum for adolescents' social relationships and the peer group has long been regarded as an important context for the growth to independence (e.g., Poole, 1989). According to theory (Festinger, 1954) people determine the correctness of their beliefs by testing them. It is by such social comparison that a person learns about the world and about the self within it, and thereby reduces uncertainty. Persons who are unsure of themselves are particularly willing to make social comparisons with a reference group in order to determine what correct or desirable behavior is. The reference group for young people usually consists of peers. It is claimed that adolescents are particularly vulnerable to peer influence, since adolescence is such a critical period with so many significant changes occurring simultaneously. …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".