The Relative Influence of Different Domains of Social Connectedness on Self-Directed Violence in Adolescence
Previous research has linked greater social connectedness with a lowered risk of self-directed violence among adolescents. However, few studies have analyzed the comparative strength of different domains of connectedness (e.g., family, peers and school) to determine where limited resources might best be focused. Data to address that gap were taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Student Health and Safety Survey, administered to 4,131 7th–12th graders (51.5% female; 43.8% Hispanic; 22.6% African American or Black). Logistic regressions (controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, academic performance, and depressive symptoms) suggest that family connectedness was a stronger predictor than connectedness to peers, school, or adults at school for non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-fatal suicidal behavior. In some analyses, peer connectedness was unexpectedly a risk factor. Results have implications for prevention of suicide in adolescence, especially in the context of the current trend towards school-based prevention programs.
KeywordsAdolescents Suicide Family relations Peer relations School connectedness
- Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbss. Accessed on September 30, 2009.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Strategic direction for the prevention of suicidal behavior. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_Strategic_Direction_Full_Version-a.pdf Accessed June 5, 2009.
- Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., et al. (2007). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57(SS-4), 1–131.Google Scholar
- McKeown, R. E., Garrison, C. Z., Cuffe, S. P., Waller, J. L., Jackson, K. L., & Addy, C. L. (1998). Incidence and predictors of suicidal behaviors in a longitudinal sample of young adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 612–619.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Orpinas, P. (1993). Modified depression scale. Houston: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.Google Scholar
- Rubenstein, J. L., Heeren, T., Housman, D., Rubin, C., & Stechler, G. (1989). Suicidal behavior in “normal” adolescents: Risk and protective factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1, 59–71.Google Scholar
- Townsend, K. C., & McWhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counseling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 191–201.Google Scholar
- U.S. Public Health Service. (2001). National strategy for suicide prevention: Goals and objectives for action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research and intervention. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar