Peer reactions to non-suicidal self-injury disclosures: a thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging adults who engage in non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) tend to share such experiences with peers. Thus, peers may represent a vital avenue for accessing recovery support and further help (e.g. encouraging professional help-seeking). With little known about how university students respond to NSSI disclosures from peers, the present study attempted to examine these experiences from the vantage point of disclosure recipients. Responses were gathered from a sample of undergraduate students who received an NSSI disclosure from a friend. Specifically, 104, primarily white female, emerging adults (M = 18.29 years of age, SD = .80) were recruited from a Canadian university. Demographics and open-ended questions asking about experiences receiving an NSSI disclosure from a friend were collected via online survey. Responses to the open-ended qualitative questions were examined using a thematic analysis. Responses fell broadly into four domains (intense emotional reactions, supportive responding, impact on peer relationship, and perceived insight about NSSI), which were each composed of two to four themes. Overall, findings point to several implications for researchers (e.g. developing accessible resources for peers of those who self-injure) and counselors (e.g. helping people who self-injure to understand the reactions of their peers).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".