Shame, guilt, and suicidal thoughts: The interaction matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined associations between generalized shame and guilt, and suicidal ideation. METHODS: Individuals attending outpatient mental health services (N = 100) completed study measures at a single time point. Correlation and regression analyses examined associations between recent suicidal ideation and generalized shame and guilt, both concurrently and interacting, controlling for depressive symptoms and history of previous suicide attempt. RESULTS: When examined concurrently, guilt - but not shame - remained significantly associated with suicidal ideation, after accounting for effects of depressive symptoms and past suicide attempt. A significant shame × guilt interaction revealed the association between guilt and suicidal ideation intensified with higher shame. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasize consideration of generalized shame and guilt - and their interaction - when working with patients exhibiting suicidal thoughts. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Shame and guilt are self-conscious emotions that, when generalized and excessive, may confer risk for suicidal ideation Generalized guilt may be uniquely linked with suicidal ideation, yet this association may also amplified by shame Both shame and guilt - and their interaction - are important to consider when working with patients exhibiting suicidal thoughts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".