Why People Consider Suicide: Psychological Models and Evidence

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 18, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Cluster Suicide Prevention, Self-Harm and Crisis Care · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Why Do People Consider Suicide? A Scientific Explanation

People may consider suicide when intense psychological suffering converges with a perception that the suffering will continue, that meaningful alternatives are inaccessible, or that they have become disconnected from people and possibilities that usually sustain life. This experience develops through interacting personal histories, immediate stressors, emotional and cognitive processes, relationships, psychiatric or medical conditions, and social circumstances. Scientific theories seek to explain how suicidal thinking begins, why its intensity varies, and why only some people progress from thoughts to actions. No single theory adequately accounts for every person or every crisis. The central finding across contemporary research is that the emergence of suicidal ideation and the transition from ideation to suicidal behavior require related but partly distinct explanations (Klonsky, Saffer, and Bryan, 2018; Torino et al., 2026).

The question “why” may refer to several levels of explanation. At the phenomenological level, a person might describe an urgent wish for suffering to end, exhaustion, shame, or feeling trapped. At the psychological level, researchers study hopelessness, defeat, perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, cognitive constriction, and emotional pain. At the clinical level, clinicians evaluate the individual's history and current condition, including intent, planning, behavior, access to dangerous means, and protective supports. At the population level, social disadvantage, violence, discrimination, inadequate health care, and availability of highly lethal means affect the conditions in which crises develop. These levels belong in one explanatory framework because suicide is multifactorial (CDC, 2026; WHO, 2026).

Understanding a suicidal thought begins with taking the person's account seriously. A thought about death may express exhaustion, a wish to escape, a specific fear, an intrusive unwanted image, or an intention to act; the same words can carry different meanings in different lives. Researchers can investigate general mechanisms, while individual risk and care require a direct, compassionate professional assessment. If someone is at risk of acting soon, has started preparing to act, cannot stay safe, or has already injured themselves, emergency evaluation is appropriate now. In the United States, call emergency services for immediate danger and call or text 988 for suicide or mental-health crisis support; elsewhere use local emergency and crisis services (NIMH, 2025).

What Suicidal Ideation Means in Research and Clinical Practice

Passive thoughts, active thoughts, intention, and behavior

Suicidal ideation means thinking about suicide, although research instruments vary in whether they include a wish to be dead, active thoughts of killing oneself, or thoughts accompanied by possible planning. Passive suicidal ideation commonly refers to wishing one were dead or would not wake up without expressing an active intention to cause death. Active suicidal ideation involves thoughts of killing oneself. Suicidal intent concerns an intention or determination to act; planning concerns preparation and consideration of actions. These experiences may overlap, change quickly, and require separate questions. The fact that a person describes thoughts as passive does not by itself establish immediate safety, particularly when the situation is changing.

A suicide attempt is self-injurious behavior undertaken with at least some intent to die, regardless of whether the person survives without physical injury or receives medical treatment. Nonsuicidal self-injury involves deliberately injuring oneself without an intention to die. The broader term self-harm, including its use in the NICE guideline, can encompass intentional self-poisoning or injury irrespective of stated suicidal purpose. Intent may be mixed, uncertain, concealed, or evolve within an episode. These definitions serve assessment and research classification; they should never become assumptions about an individual merely because a behavior resembles a familiar category (NICE NG225).

A thought is an experience, not a psychiatric diagnosis

Suicidal ideation is a clinically important experience that can occur with depressive disorders, bipolar disorder, psychosis, trauma-related conditions, substance use, pain, major life disruptions, or complex combinations of circumstances. It also occurs among people who do not meet criteria for major depressive disorder. The presence of suicidal ideation does not establish a particular psychiatric diagnosis; an absent diagnosis does not rule out acute danger. A separate published analysis examines suicidal thoughts without depression, while the present article explains the psychological theories that connect diverse experiences to suicidal thinking.

Unwanted harm-related obsessions require especially careful interviewing. In obsessive-compulsive disorder, intrusive thoughts or images of self-harm may be ego-dystonic, frightening, and associated with compulsive checking or reassurance-seeking; suicidal intent is assessed independently. A separate canonical examination addresses suicidal OCD and the difference between intrusive thoughts and suicidal intent. Clinical interviews should ask what the thought means to the person rather than treating the word “suicide” as a uniform psychological phenomenon.

Acute crises and persistent ideation

Some people experience suicidal thoughts during a sharply escalating crisis, while others report thoughts recurring for months or years. An acute crisis may involve agitation, sudden losses, overwhelming shame, intoxication, or abrupt changes in circumstances. Chronic suicidal ideation may occur in the context of longstanding psychological pain, recurrent mood symptoms, complex trauma, or relational and functional difficulties. Neither duration nor apparent familiarity with the thoughts determines their present risk. A person with longstanding ideation can develop a new acute escalation, and a first episode may be severe. Continuity, triggers, functional meaning, and changes from the individual's baseline are therefore more informative than a simple acute-versus-chronic label. See the separate research on chronic suicidal ideation, assessment, treatment, and support.

A Brief History of Psychological Explanations

Early psychological interpretations emphasized unbearable mental pain, the desire to escape perceived insoluble difficulties, hopelessness about the future, and disruptions in social belonging. These traditions remain influential because they capture experiences commonly disclosed by people in distress. Later theories sought testable mechanisms explaining how such experiences develop and how thoughts become actions. The movement toward ideation-to-action models was a major conceptual development: researchers increasingly regarded the determinants of suicidal thinking and the determinants of behavior as different research questions (Klonsky, Saffer, and Bryan, 2018).

The historical appeal of a theory and the quality of its empirical support are separate matters. A construct may describe suffering convincingly while demonstrating only a moderate association with suicidal ideation; a multivariable theory may predict a relationship in cross-sectional samples and fail prospective replication. The interpretation of older theories should therefore distinguish clinically resonant language, observed correlations, longitudinal findings, intervention mechanisms, and validated causal propositions. Theories are scientific maps whose usefulness depends on explanatory precision and evidence, rather than universal descriptions of how every suicidal person feels.

Psychological Pain and the Wish for Relief

Psychache and unbearable subjective distress

Psychological pain, sometimes called mental pain or psychache in the theoretical literature, refers to intense aversive inner suffering involving emotional injury, humiliation, loss, shame, guilt, or a perceived fracture in personal meaning. Such pain may coexist with physical pain, psychiatric symptoms, and acute stress. The experience can narrow the person's imagination of attainable relief and make cessation of distress appear urgently important. Psychological pain is associated with suicidal ideation and attempts in observational literature, including a meta-analysis examining suicidal outcomes (Ducasse et al., 2018; Verrocchio et al., 2016).

The research implication is substantial: asking only about sadness or a depression diagnosis can miss the central quality of suffering a person is experiencing. An interview can examine emotional pain, what has made it intolerable, what still offers even temporary relief, and whether the person believes anyone can help. Yet psychological pain is widespread, and its association with suicidality does not establish that pain alone causes suicidal behavior. The strength and meaning of the relationship change with measurement, comparison group, clinical setting, and whether suicidal thoughts or attempts are measured.

Escape, narrowing of options, and perceived irreversibility

Escape-oriented accounts propose that suicide may enter a person's thinking when they perceive their present circumstances or inner experience as intolerable and experience sharply reduced access to alternative solutions. In such a state, attention can become dominated by a few frightening interpretations: “nothing can change,” “I have exhausted all possibilities,” or “others would be better off.” These interpretations represent possible cognitive and emotional processes, not objective facts about the person's life. Practical help, pain relief, restored sleep, human contact, and changes in the immediate environment may alter the situation even when those possibilities feel invisible in the crisis.

Cognitive narrowing provides a useful clinical hypothesis: intense arousal and hopelessness can reduce flexible problem solving and future simulation. The hypothesis gains value when clinicians test it against the individual's own account—what appears impossible, which alternatives have been considered, which are blocked by actual circumstances, and what supports could create real options. It is ethically important to examine material constraints, such as unsafe housing or inaccessible treatment, instead of framing all blocked choices as cognitive errors.

Hopelessness: Expectations About the Future

Hopelessness concerns negative expectations that desired improvement is unlikely or that the future contains no meaningful alternatives. It can develop after repeated painful experiences, perceived failures, adverse social experiences, or persistent symptoms. Its importance in suicide theory comes from a temporal judgment: present suffering is experienced alongside an expectation that suffering will persist. Longitudinal research supports associations between hopelessness, depression, and later suicidal outcomes, but predictive effects differ by endpoint and context (Ribeiro et al., 2018).

Hopelessness is related to, but conceptually distinct from, depressed mood and demoralization. A person may feel intensely distressed yet imagine ways that life could improve; another may function outwardly while expressing profound pessimism about any future change. Assessment therefore examines the content, firmness, and context of these expectations. Statements such as “I cannot imagine getting better” invite exploration of previous attempts to obtain help, experiences of rejection by services, losses, and the availability of practical next steps. They should be treated as signals of distress and unmet needs, never as a mathematically calibrated forecast of what the person will do.

Hope is also relational and environmental. Credible access to care, someone willing to remain in contact, relief from an unsafe setting, or an attainable near-term goal can change the person's possibilities. Psychological interventions often address hopelessness through collaborative problem solving and behavioral change, while effective prevention also requires correcting structural barriers that maintain despair.

The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide

Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness

The interpersonal theory of suicide, formalized by Joiner and colleagues, proposes that suicidal desire can develop when two aversive interpersonal states intersect: thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness. Thwarted belongingness means feeling disconnected, excluded, or deprived of reciprocal caring relationships. Perceived burdensomeness refers to the belief that one's existence imposes an intolerable cost on others, sometimes accompanied by the erroneous belief that loved ones might benefit from one's death. The theory further emphasizes hopelessness about improvement in these interpersonal states (Van Orden et al., 2010).

The word perceived is fundamental. A person can feel like a burden while being loved and valued; the theory does not endorse the accuracy of that belief. Experiences of unemployment, disability, discrimination, caregiving strain, loss of a relationship, or repeated criticism may amplify the perception. Clinical dialogue examines both the belief and the reality of social support, avoiding arguments that invalidate the person's suffering. Rebuilding reciprocal connections and addressing unmet practical needs may create room for a different understanding of one's place in the lives of others.

Why interpersonal desire does not explain every attempt

The interpersonal theory also proposes that capability for suicide helps distinguish suicidal desire from suicidal action. In theoretical terms, capability refers to interacting dispositions and experiences relevant to overcoming barriers to carrying out a self-destructive act. The construct was intended to explain why suicidal thoughts are more common than suicide attempts. Research has evaluated components of capability, though their measurement, independence, and prospective predictive value remain debated (Van Orden et al., 2010; Klonsky, Saffer, and Bryan, 2018).

Empirical support is uneven across the theory's interacting propositions. Belongingness and burdensomeness are meaningful targets for inquiry, but correlational evidence for individual constructs does not prove the entire proposed sequence. Results also depend on cultural context, measurement invariance, and whether researchers study thoughts, attempts, or deaths. A compassionate clinician may use the model to ask about belonging, while respecting that a person whose thoughts arose through pain, psychosis, fear, or another pathway may not recognize its interpersonal language.

The Integrated Motivational–Volitional Model

A three-phase account of vulnerability and suicidal motivation

The integrated motivational–volitional model (IMV) organizes suicide-related processes into pre-motivational, motivational, and volitional phases. Background vulnerabilities, life events, social experiences, and environmental circumstances occupy the pre-motivational level. Within the motivational phase, perceived defeat—the experience of failed struggle, humiliation, or loss of status or agency—may develop into entrapment when escape from unbearable circumstances seems impossible. The model identifies this defeat-to-entrapment pathway as particularly important in the emergence of suicidal ideation (O’Connor and Kirtley, 2018).

Entrapment may feel internal, as when someone longs to escape thoughts or symptoms that appear impossible to quiet, or external, as when distress arises from controlling relationships, insecurity, harassment, or dangerous living conditions. The psychological insight lies in how the person appraises access to escape or change. Researchers examine moderators that may strengthen or reduce progression from defeat and entrapment toward suicidal thinking, including social support, problem solving, and interpersonal expectations. Assessment must also recognize that externally imposed danger, poverty, and coercion can be concrete realities rather than interpretations alone.

Volitional processes and the limits of a staged model

The IMV proposes that additional volitional moderators contribute to movement from thoughts toward behavior. These include prior suicidal behavior, exposure to suicidal behavior, access to dangerous means, and individual differences relevant to enactment. Their inclusion is conceptually useful because an increase in thoughts does not necessarily mean the same increase in behavioral risk. An acute crisis may involve a rapid change in access, circumstances, or intention that requires action regardless of a person's long-term statistical profile.

A systematic review of 100 studies represented in 98 records, involving 138,365 participants, found support for the defeat–entrapment–ideation pathway, while evidence from prospective and adjusted studies was mixed for parts of the broader model (Souza et al., 2024). A separate 2026 review comparing IMV and three-step theory studies found stronger support for ideation formation than for theorized transitions to action, and emphasized incomplete whole-model testing and inconsistent construct measurement (Torino et al., 2026). This is a useful distinction between promising explanatory architecture and demonstrated individual-level prediction.

The Three-Step Theory

Pain plus hopelessness

The three-step theory (3ST), proposed by Klonsky and May, begins with the interaction of psychological pain and hopelessness. Pain describes an aversive present condition; hopelessness concerns the expectation that the condition will continue. Their combination is theorized to make suicidal ideation more likely. The second step concerns connectedness: close relationships, meaningful roles, valued activities, and other sources of connection may moderate the severity of suicidal desire when suffering is high. The final step concerns capability relevant to acting on suicidal thoughts (Klonsky and May, 2015).

The model distinguishes a reason for wanting relief from distress from circumstances influencing whether a person feels drawn toward action. Its accessible structure makes it influential in conceptual discussions and some empirical studies. Pain, hopelessness, and connectedness can also be assessed with ordinary clinical questions without assuming a patient belongs to one theoretically defined pathway.

How strong is the evidence for all three steps?

The strongest available conclusions concern relationships between distress, hopelessness, connectedness, and suicidal ideation. Evidence that all three steps work together prospectively and accurately separate people who will attempt suicide from those who will not remains limited and methodologically contested. The 2026 systematic review reported only partial support for the IMV and 3ST models; 3ST results were particularly sensitive to inconsistent definitions and measurement of pain and connectedness (Torino et al., 2026). A theory can help clinicians organize dialogue while still falling short of a validated predictive algorithm.

Ideation-to-Action: Why Thinking and Acting Have Different Explanations

Suicidal ideation is more common than suicide attempts, and attempts are more common than suicide death. These outcomes differ in prevalence, observation, sampling, and determinants. Traditional risk-factor research frequently combined them into a broad suicidality category, which obscured why some people report thoughts repeatedly without acting while others experience rapidly escalating danger. Ideation-to-action frameworks therefore treat the development of thoughts and the transition to behavior as separate scientific targets (Klonsky, Saffer, and Bryan, 2018).

This distinction prevents a common reasoning error: a factor strongly associated with suicidal thoughts need not distinguish people who attempt suicide from people who experience thoughts without attempting. Likewise, an intervention that reduces reported suicidal ideation has not automatically demonstrated reductions in attempts or mortality. Each claim requires an appropriate comparison group, follow-up period, measurement procedure, and outcome. Suicide mortality is a particularly rare endpoint within many clinical trials; sample size and statistical uncertainty often prevent confident conclusions about deaths.

The ideation-to-action perspective does not mean that suicidal behavior follows a tidy sequence. Some people have long periods of ideation, others develop rapidly escalating danger, and some experiences are difficult to classify because of mixed intent, recall bias, or evolving circumstances. Direct clinical inquiry about a person's current intent and actions remains essential. Understanding behavior includes history, immediate warning signs, context, practical safety, and contact with effective care.

Fluid Vulnerability and the Changing Course of a Crisis

Fluid vulnerability accounts emphasize that suicide risk can vary markedly over time, with longer-term susceptibility interacting with short-term stress, affective shifts, cognitive changes, sleep disturbances, interpersonal rupture, and exposure to immediate hazards. From this perspective, a person may be relatively stable while experiencing intermittent thoughts, then enter a period of sharply elevated distress and reduced coping capacity. Recovery from a crisis can be followed by renewed vulnerability if circumstances and supports change. Theoretical reviews identify temporal nonlinearity as an important issue that static cross-sectional comparisons cannot adequately capture (Klonsky, Saffer, and Bryan, 2018).

This account has practical value even though the prediction of exact crisis timing remains an open scientific problem. Assessment should establish both a baseline history and what has recently changed: the person's intensity of distress, agitation, substance use, sleep, social contact, access to dangerous means, intentions, and perceived ability to remain safe. A recent calming of affect is interpreted within the whole clinical situation, because outward calm alone does not establish that the circumstances generating danger have resolved.

Real-time research using repeated assessments can capture changing thoughts and affect with greater temporal resolution than annual surveys. Yet intensive measurement has its own problems, including selection bias, missing data at the moments of greatest distress, the burden of frequent prompts, and the inability to observe rare events reliably. Digital monitoring may supplement humane care and research, but its use must address privacy, response capacity, clinical accountability, and informed consent.

Biological, Cognitive, and Stress-Related Processes

Stress sensitivity, mood regulation, and individual vulnerability

Psychological models describe processes within systems shaped by biology and experience. Sleep disruption, chronic pain, intoxication, mood episodes, sustained stress, and trauma-related arousal can change affect regulation and cognitive flexibility. Genetic, developmental, neurobiological, and environmental factors have been studied in relation to suicidality; observed associations do not identify a single biological cause or an individual destiny. The scientific challenge is to explain how vulnerabilities interact with events and available resources across time, rather than reducing suicidal thinking to a single neurotransmitter, diagnosis, or life event.

Clinicians should consider medical and psychiatric conditions when they affect the current presentation. Major depression, bipolar mood episodes, psychotic experiences, substance-related disorders, and trauma-related symptoms can each alter the type of distress and the kind of treatment required. The distinct clinical relationship between bipolar disorder and suicide risk is examined in its own canonical research article. A theory of suicidal motivation helps organize questions but never substitutes for identifying treatable conditions, medication effects, withdrawal, neurological or medical problems, or a dangerous acute state.

Rumination, cognitive rigidity, and perceived loss of agency

Rumination refers to repetitive, self-focused consideration of distress and its meanings. In some contexts it can sustain hopelessness or amplify attention to perceived failure. Cognitive rigidity and difficulties shifting perspective may further narrow accessible responses to emotional pain. Their relationships to suicidal ideation are plausible and researched, though heterogeneous across groups and instruments. Ordinary repetitive thinking does not diagnose risk, and a person can experience suicide-related obsessions without wishing to die. Context, distress, intent, and function of the thought must be examined together.

Perceived loss of agency can arise through repeated failure to secure relief, threats to identity, coercion, exclusion, or inability to alter concrete circumstances. A productive clinical formulation identifies where a person's options are genuinely constrained and where support, rights protection, treatment, or environmental changes could restore meaningful choices. Psychological explanations become stronger when they account for such social realities instead of assigning every difficulty to an individual's thinking style.

Social Context, Inequality, and Environmental Risk

Suicide prevention requires a multilevel perspective. The CDC describes risk and protective factors at individual, relationship, community, and societal levels. Social isolation, interpersonal violence, discrimination, family conflict, financial insecurity, inadequate access to care, and unsafe media exposure may contribute to risk in different populations. Supportive relationships, reasons for living, effective care, problem-solving resources, and community participation may be protective. These factors interact, and most individuals who experience recognized risk factors do not attempt suicide (CDC, 2026).

The relationship between social adversity and suicidal experience cannot be understood through personal attitudes alone. A person facing harassment, poverty, unsafe housing, or an inaccessible health system may need legal, financial, housing, educational, or community interventions alongside psychotherapy. Theories of defeat and entrapment can describe the subjective experience of these circumstances, but responsible prevention also addresses the circumstances themselves. Population-level public health strategies are therefore part of psychological prevention rather than peripheral additions.

Responsible reporting, strengthening youth social-emotional skills, prompt identification and follow-up, and policies that reduce access to highly lethal means during periods of risk belong to the WHO LIVE LIFE framework (WHO LIVE LIFE). Media and community messaging should avoid sensationalism, oversimplified causal claims, and details that facilitate harm. Comprehensive prevention combines social protection, community services, clinical continuity, and a culture in which disclosure leads to practical help.

Why Some People Have Suicidal Thoughts Without Wanting to Die

Suicidal thinking can contain ambivalence. Someone may desperately want a particular emotional condition, illness, conflict, or sense of failure to end while simultaneously wishing to continue living under different circumstances. Others describe passive wishes for death without a current intention to cause death. Some experience repeated thoughts that they regard as unwanted and frightening. This diversity is one reason careful clinical interviewing asks separately about the desire to escape, reasons for living, fears, intentions, preparations, and ability to obtain help. A statement of ambivalence deserves active attention because the balance of feelings may shift during a crisis.

The observation that a person wants suffering to end has a practical implication: effective care looks for ways to relieve that suffering and increase reachable alternatives. Treatment may address an acute disorder, medical pain, exposure to harm, social isolation, a housing emergency, substance-related impairment, or a combination. Support often begins with small, feasible actions that change the coming hours or days, followed by sustained follow-up to address recurrent vulnerabilities. A psychologically informed explanation of suicidal thoughts thus connects internal experiences to material routes toward safety and recovery.

At the same time, neither an expressed wish to live nor the absence of an explicit wish to die provides a complete acute assessment. People may be uncertain, unable to describe their feelings, reluctant to disclose intent, or impaired by intoxication, agitation, psychosis, or severe distress. A clinician responds to the entire presentation, including recent behavior, warning signs, access to potentially lethal means, and support. The professional task is to understand the person's specific situation and ensure the level of care matches their immediate needs.

The Psychological Difference Between Risk Factors and Warning Signs

Risk factors describe characteristics or circumstances associated with a greater probability of suicidal thoughts or behavior across populations or follow-up periods. They may include prior attempts, major psychiatric disorders, violence exposure, chronic pain, or a history of adversity. Protective factors describe associations with lower risk or resources that can support safety. Warning signs concern observable or reported changes that may indicate current or escalating distress, such as speaking about wanting to die, feeling trapped, intense agitation, increasing withdrawal, preparatory behavior, or a major recent change in functioning (CDC, 2026; NIMH, 2025).

These categories answer different questions. A previous attempt matters for longitudinal vulnerability even when the person has no current intent. An abrupt increase in agitation or preparations may require immediate attention even in someone without a known psychiatric history. Protective factors matter because they can be cultivated and mobilized, but they cannot be counted as guarantees. A strong relationship or stated reason for living may coexist with acute danger and should be integrated with a full assessment rather than used to dismiss concern.

Individual prediction remains scientifically limited. The widely cited meta-analysis of 365 longitudinal studies found that traditional risk factors had only modest predictive performance across suicidal outcomes, with little improvement over the preceding decades (Franklin et al., 2017). Findings about averages and associations do not establish which individual will attempt suicide, whether a particular person's crisis will escalate tonight, or whether treatment should be offered. Clinical responsibility rests on assessing present needs, responding to warning signs, and providing care.

What the Major Psychological Theories Explain—and What They Leave Open

Interpersonal mechanisms

The interpersonal theory concentrates on the psychological meaning of connection and burden. It directs assessment toward perceived social exclusion, loneliness, reciprocal care, and the belief that others might be better off without the person. Its strengths include clear constructs, testable hypotheses, and clinical relevance to relationships. Its limitations concern the variable support for combined hypotheses, cultural differences in expressing obligation or belonging, and uncertainty about translating correlational findings into predictions about attempts (Van Orden et al., 2010).

Defeat, entrapment, and motivational transitions

The IMV emphasizes the experience of failed struggle and perceived inescapability. It provides a detailed structure for understanding how predispositions, crises, and cognitive-emotional moderators might generate suicidal thinking. Support for the defeat–entrapment–ideation pathway is substantial enough to warrant serious clinical attention, while whole-model and prospective tests of progression to action remain mixed. Its language is particularly useful when a person reports that every avenue of escape has closed (Souza et al., 2024).

Pain, hopelessness, and connectedness

The 3ST integrates felt pain with a negative forecast of future relief, then asks how connection may moderate desire. It is concise and accessible; it also shares constructs with other theories. Current evidence more clearly supports several associations relevant to ideation than a complete, clinically predictive three-step sequence. Operational definitions of pain and connectedness differ across studies, limiting synthesis (Klonsky and May, 2015; Torino et al., 2026).

Temporal instability and changing environments

Fluid vulnerability perspectives direct attention to fluctuations, feedback loops, triggers, and interactions between enduring vulnerabilities and acute crises. They may be particularly useful in explaining why a reassuring interview on one day cannot be treated as indefinite clearance from danger. The key limitations are that precise real-time transition mechanisms remain difficult to study, and many empirical designs do not capture sufficiently fine time scales. The clinical response is repeated assessment, a practical safety plan, and care continuity rather than speculative individual forecasting.

Integration without a single universal explanation

The theories overlap in their descriptions of painful internal states and depleted access to relief, but they organize these phenomena differently. A comprehensive formulation may combine emotional pain, hopelessness, perceived burdensomeness, entrapment, disrupted sleep, a recent breakup, substance use, and a lack of accessible care. Such integration is justified by individual evidence and context, not by assuming that multiple theories have been jointly validated as one predictive model. The 2026 systematic review of IMV and 3ST research found partial support across models, stronger evidence for ideation formation, and unresolved problems in explaining progression to action (Torino et al., 2026).

Suicidal Ideation Across Psychiatric and Medical Conditions

Depression, bipolar episodes, and hopelessness

Depressive symptoms can increase psychological pain, loss of pleasure, fatigue, negative expectations, and diminished functioning, but depression and suicidal ideation are not interchangeable. A person with major depression may have no suicidal thoughts, while a person without depression may experience severe ideation. Longitudinal evidence links depression and hopelessness to suicidal outcomes but offers limited individual prediction (Ribeiro et al., 2018). Bipolar depressive, mixed, and other mood states require condition-specific clinical assessment; separate research explains bipolar disorder and suicide risk.

Psychosis, trauma, and substance-related crises

Psychotic experiences can influence suicidal thinking through fear, distress, hopelessness, mood symptoms, or difficulties evaluating immediate safety. Trauma-related symptoms can involve hyperarousal, shame, dissociation, interpersonal distrust, or repeated exposure to memories that appear inescapable. Alcohol or drug intoxication can impair participation in assessment and alter behavior or judgment. These conditions call for specific medical and psychiatric approaches, not the assumption that an interpersonal or cognitive theory alone provides the appropriate treatment. Clinical reassessment is particularly important when intoxication, sleep deprivation, or an acute medical condition is changing.

Chronic pain, serious illness, and disability

Persistent physical pain and serious illness can interact with hopelessness, isolation, fear, treatment burden, economic insecurity, and experiences of being treated as dependent or disposable. Disability by itself should never be interpreted as a wish for death. Support includes symptom management, dignified access to care, communication about autonomy, social resources, and direct assessment when suicidal thinking appears. The perceived burdensomeness construct is valuable here only when it is recognized as the person's painful belief, rather than an endorsement of discriminatory judgments about human worth (CDC, 2026).

Autism and differences in communication or sensory experience

Psychological distress may be communicated differently by autistic people and by people with other neurodevelopmental characteristics. Sensory overload, burnout, loneliness, bullying, masking pressures, inaccessible care, or difficulty describing internal states may shape presentation. Universal interview scripts need adaptation to the person's communication needs; absence of conventional emotional language does not establish low distress. A separate canonical article covers suicide risk in autistic adults. This theoretical article focuses on broadly applicable mechanisms while maintaining the independence of population-specific science.

Adolescence: Developmental Context Matters

Adolescents are navigating rapid changes in peer relationships, emotional regulation, social identity, independence, family roles, and access to support. Rejection, bullying, family conflict, discrimination, or online exposures may interact with developmental vulnerabilities and existing mental-health conditions. The same interpersonal construct may not carry the same meaning at different ages. An adolescent's limited freedom to leave an unsafe environment can make perceived entrapment both psychologically intense and materially grounded.

A 2024 systematic review of leading ideation-to-action models among adolescents reported mixed support for individual theory components and relatively few complete model tests. The authors emphasized developmentally sensitive frameworks, neurodevelopmental processes, and the need for more temporally informative research (Kirshenbaum et al., 2024). Adult-derived theories therefore provide hypotheses for adolescent research rather than automatic rules for young people's assessment.

In clinical care, adolescents need developmentally appropriate language, careful assessment of intent and behavior, attention to school and family contexts, and safeguarding when abuse or coercion is suspected. Parent or caregiver involvement can support monitoring and follow-up when safe and appropriate, while confidentiality, consent, and legal requirements must be explained clearly. A child or adolescent who discloses escalating suicidal intent requires timely professional evaluation. Screening instruments developed for youth can help identify a need for further assessment, but cannot substitute for a developmental and psychosocial formulation (NIMH ASQ Toolkit).

Why Suicide Risk Is Difficult to Predict

Population associations and individual outcomes

Even a risk factor with a genuine association may be common among people who never attempt suicide. Conversely, a relatively rare suicidal outcome can occur in someone who does not fit a familiar high-risk profile. Prediction requires prospective data, reliable definitions, appropriate follow-up, consideration of base rates, and external validation in the population in which a proposed tool will be used. Discrimination between groups is different from assigning a trustworthy probability of an event to one individual.

A meta-analysis of longitudinal research found that individual risk-factor categories performed only modestly in forecasting future suicidal outcomes (Franklin et al., 2017). More recent theory-focused reviews likewise caution that supportive correlations among model constructs cannot establish accurate prediction of the transition from ideation to behavior (Torino et al., 2026). The implications are methodological and clinical: report performance metrics, absolute risks and limitations in research, and avoid telling patients that a score or theoretical profile determines their fate.

Why the distinction between attempts and deaths matters

Suicidal ideation, self-harm episodes, suicide attempts, and suicide mortality are separate endpoints. Some studies combine them for statistical power, but this can mask substantial differences in intent, ascertainment, frequency, and clinical significance. A model that explains variation in thoughts may be important without demonstrating reduced attempts; an intervention that increases engagement with care may be valuable without having enough mortality events to test effects on deaths. Strong scientific reporting names the outcome, the population, the comparator, and the observation period.

The limits of screening instruments and risk scores

The NICE self-harm guideline explicitly recommends against using risk assessment tools or global categories of low, medium, or high risk to predict suicide or repeated self-harm, determine discharge, or decide who receives treatment. Instead it directs clinicians toward a needs-based psychosocial assessment and collaborative risk formulation (NICE NG225). This guidance does not mean that structured questions are useless. Instruments can help identify disclosures, document clinically relevant information, and trigger appropriate assessment pathways. Their role is recognition and structured communication, not deterministic selection of who is entitled to care.

How Clinicians Assess the Psychological Meaning of Suicidal Thoughts

Screening opens the conversation

Clinical screening asks standardized questions to identify people who may need further evaluation. For example, NIMH's Ask Suicide-Screening Questions toolkit provides validated brief screening tools and age- and setting-specific clinical pathways for medical environments. A positive result calls for a brief safety assessment and an appropriate next step. A negative result does not override significant clinical concern, and the service must have the capacity to respond when a person discloses distress (NIMH ASQ Toolkit).

Screening questionnaires usually measure a limited set of responses during a defined period. They may miss rapid changes, ambivalence, fear of disclosure, language differences, or the meaning of a thought. A person-centered interview follows the disclosure with clarifying questions, an effort to establish trust, and explanation of confidentiality and its limits. The purpose is to connect someone to an effective response, not to convert distress into a bureaucratic threshold.

Psychosocial assessment examines the whole situation

An assessment asks about the nature and timing of suicidal thoughts, present intent, recent behavior, possible preparations, access to potentially lethal means, previous episodes and attempts, mental and physical symptoms, substance use, recent events, interpersonal context, strengths, protective relationships, and the person's own understanding of what could make them safe. It also evaluates immediate medical needs and capacity to engage in an assessment. The process is iterative when new information appears or circumstances change.

Clinicians should assess the person's reasons for living without using these as proof of safety. They should explore feelings of entrapment, burdensomeness, pain, hopelessness, and disconnection where these fit the person's story, while remaining alert to experiences such as suicidal obsessions, psychotic phenomena, or acute mood symptoms that require a different interpretation. Respectful questions and collaborative discussion can reduce the barrier to disclosure. The VA/DoD 2024 guideline provides an evidence-based framework for identification, comprehensive assessment, and management of patients at risk of suicide (VA/DoD, 2024).

Formulation links mechanisms to practical safety decisions

Clinical risk formulation is a written or spoken synthesis of vulnerabilities, current changes, the psychological and situational processes sustaining danger, accessible means, protective resources, and actions needed to reduce risk. It is revisited when the situation changes and records clinical reasoning about needs, follow-up, and level of care. Theoretical constructs can enrich that formulation when they are supported by information from the individual interview. Formulation is distinct from a diagnosis and distinct from a numerical forecast.

A meaningful formulation might identify chronic trauma-related distress, a recent severe loss, escalating alcohol use, disrupted sleep, withdrawal from a supportive friend, and an emergent intention to act. The corresponding plan could involve urgent medical assessment, immediate reduction of access to dangerous means, contact with trusted people, treatment for relevant symptoms, and assured follow-up. The components arise from the actual presentation rather than from assigning the person a category because one scale score crossed a cutoff (NICE NG225).

How Psychological Theories Inform Treatment

Treating pain, hopelessness, and entrapment

The most useful application of theory is to generate careful, testable questions about what maintains distress and which changes would improve safety. A hopelessness-focused formulation might support collaborative examination of future expectations and the construction of attainable steps. An entrapment-focused formulation may identify practical exits from dangerous or unbearable circumstances. An interpersonal formulation may help address shame, isolation, fear of burdening others, or broken communication. These are clinical hypotheses to be tailored to the individual, not therapies whose effectiveness follows merely from the plausibility of a theory.

Clinical treatment also targets the conditions driving distress: depressive episodes, trauma-related symptoms, substance-use problems, sleep disruption, pain, severe agitation, housing instability, and threats to safety. Coordination among medical, psychological, and social services may be indispensable. A coherent plan addresses both immediate crisis management and the longer-term sources of vulnerability. Empirical evidence for an intervention should be evaluated directly, including the study's patient group and primary outcome, rather than inferred from a theoretical mechanism.

Cognitive behavioral approaches

Suicide-focused cognitive behavioral approaches can examine painful appraisals, hopelessness, problem-solving constraints, reactions to warning signs, and behavioral patterns associated with crises. Collaborative work may focus on a crisis narrative, alternative responses, skill practice, and relapse prevention. Protocols differ substantially, and trials have measured different outcomes and populations. A specific published review examines cognitive behavioral therapy for suicide prevention, including the distinctions between suicidal ideation, attempts, and engagement in care.

The theoretical claim that hopelessness matters supports asking about hopelessness; it does not prove that every CBT protocol reduces suicide deaths. Treatment decisions require evidence for the exact intervention, trained clinicians, adequate supervision, appropriate intensity, and follow-up. Cognitive techniques also must be integrated with material support when the person's difficulties have concrete social or medical origins.

Dialectical behavior therapy and emotion regulation

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) combines behavioral analysis, skills for managing intense emotion and distress, interpersonal effectiveness, and structured approaches to dangerous behavior. Its evidence base is particularly relevant in defined populations with recurrent self-harm or serious emotion-regulation difficulties, including some adolescent and adult clinical samples. Effects on self-harm episodes, suicide attempts, and ideation must be considered separately; they vary by population and study design. DBT is a specialized treatment system requiring appropriate clinical training and implementation, not simply a collection of crisis coping tips.

In theory terms, DBT addresses processes that can accompany entrapment and psychological pain, such as intense affect, perceived absence of tolerable alternatives, and breakdowns in problem solving. The scientific justification for clinical use comes from studies of the treatment itself, together with clinical guidelines and individual needs. A patient who needs emergency medical or psychiatric evaluation cannot safely substitute a stand-alone skill exercise for indicated acute care.

Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality

Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) explicitly organizes treatment around the person's identified drivers of suicidal distress. The clinician and patient collaboratively examine and monitor the problems most closely connected with suicidality, establish stabilization strategies, and work toward change in those drivers. The approach is conceptually compatible with multiple theories because the person's drivers may include relational injuries, shame, psychological pain, hopelessness, or acute stressors. Evidence about CAMS varies across populations, designs, comparators, and endpoints; a conceptual fit with ideation-to-action theories does not establish comparative superiority.

Safety planning and coordinated follow-up

A collaborative safety plan usually identifies personalized warning signs, feasible coping actions, supportive people and locations, trusted contacts, professional crisis resources, and steps to reduce access to dangerous means. It should be understandable and usable during distress, shared appropriately with relevant supporters, and reviewed as circumstances change. A no-suicide contract is not a replacement for active safety assessment or planning. For people leaving acute care, timely follow-up and clear responsibility for contact matter because transitions can be vulnerable periods (VA/DoD, 2024).

A multicenter cohort-comparison study in US Veterans Health Administration emergency departments found fewer suicidal behaviors during six-month follow-up and greater treatment engagement among patients receiving the Safety Planning Intervention with structured follow-up compared with usual care. The study was not a randomized trial, involved patients discharged rather than admitted, and did not establish a mortality benefit for every setting (Stanley et al., 2018). This illustrates why effective communication of evidence specifies the intervention, comparison group, eligible population, study design, follow-up, and observed endpoint.

Immediate Safety and Professional Help

When someone describes an intention to act on suicidal thoughts, recent preparation, inability to remain safe, severe intoxication, acute confusion, or a recent potentially dangerous act, an urgent professional response is indicated. Contact local emergency services or an emergency department, remain with the person when it is safe to do so, and seek help from trusted people who can assist. Reduce access to potentially lethal means in a manner that is safe for everyone involved, without placing yourself at risk. Avoid leaving an acutely endangered person isolated while arranging assistance. In the United States, 988 provides suicide and crisis support by call or text; 911 is appropriate for immediate life-threatening emergencies. Outside the United States, use the relevant local emergency number and available crisis support (NIMH, 2025; CDC, 2026).

A calm, direct question about suicidal thoughts can open an opportunity for disclosure. Listen without minimizing the distress or debating whether the person should feel that way. Ask what is happening now, whether they are safe, and who can help them reach appropriate care. Concrete assistance—making a call together, arranging transportation to care, staying in contact, helping with immediate practical needs—may be more useful than generalized reassurance. The published clinical article on when to call 988 or emergency services explains the relevant US service distinctions in greater depth.

After a crisis has passed, review what helped, arrange continuity with appropriately qualified clinicians, address ongoing stressors, and involve supportive people according to the person's preferences, safety, and confidentiality requirements. A previous attempt or recurrent crisis warrants active, individualized follow-up. See the separate analysis of suicide risk after a previous attempt. Ongoing support is part of prevention, including for people whose ideation has become less frequent or less intense.

What the Research Still Cannot Establish

Causality and study design

Much suicide theory research relies on self-report measures collected at one time point. Cross-sectional associations can clarify how constructs co-occur, but cannot identify which factor came first or what caused a later outcome. Retrospective research may be affected by recall, and clinical studies often include highly selected participants. Prospective designs improve temporal ordering but may use long intervals that miss acute changes. The 2024 and 2026 systematic reviews found useful support for parts of the IMV and 3ST models alongside serious gaps in complete longitudinal tests (Souza et al., 2024; Torino et al., 2026).

Definitions, measurement, and overlapping constructs

Pain, hopelessness, entrapment, perceived burdensomeness, and thwarted belongingness are distinct concepts in theory, yet some questionnaire items and lived experiences overlap. If constructs are highly correlated, a study must establish whether each adds unique explanatory value beyond general distress or depressive symptoms. Suicidal ideation may be assessed as a lifetime experience, a recent symptom, or a changing momentary state. Comparisons are meaningful only when these differences are explicit. Measurement equivalence across age, culture, disability, language, and clinical setting also requires investigation.

Understudied populations and structural variation

Many influential theories were first tested primarily in adult samples. Adolescents, older adults, people with disabilities, autistic people, culturally diverse communities, and individuals experiencing discrimination or displacement may differ in which mechanisms matter and how experiences are communicated. Sampling gaps can lead to false generality. The adolescent systematic review specifically urged developmentally sensitive theory testing and stronger integration of neurodevelopmental and psychosocial perspectives (Kirshenbaum et al., 2024).

Rare outcomes, ethical constraints, and independent replication

Suicide mortality is a relatively infrequent outcome in most psychological studies, and prospective observation of rapidly changing danger presents obvious ethical responsibilities. Research must provide appropriate crisis safeguards; such safeguards can also influence outcomes being studied. Models may be developed and tested using similar samples or measures, limiting external validity. Stronger evaluation requires prespecified hypotheses, high-quality longitudinal cohorts, transparent measurement, replication across settings, and trials that test whether modifying proposed mechanisms leads to improvement in outcomes that matter to patients.

Frequently Asked Scientific and Clinical Questions

Is suicide always caused by depression?

No. Depression is an important clinical correlate and a common context for suicidal ideation, but suicide-related experiences can occur with other psychiatric conditions, medical illnesses, social crises, trauma, substance-related impairment, and people without a current depressive disorder. A careful assessment examines the person's full condition rather than assuming one diagnostic explanation (CDC, 2026).

Does hopelessness mean someone will attempt suicide?

Hopelessness is associated with later suicidal outcomes in longitudinal research, but it does not determine an individual's actions. Prediction is limited, and immediate decisions require individualized assessment of current thoughts, intent, changes, behavior, environment, and practical needs (Ribeiro et al., 2018; NICE NG225).

What is the difference between feeling trapped and having suicidal intent?

Feeling trapped describes an experience of blocked escape or change. Suicidal intent is an intention to act on suicidal thoughts. Entrapment may contribute to suicidal thinking in the IMV model, but a person's subjective experience of entrapment does not establish intent. Both should be explored directly, with attention to real environmental constraints and feasible routes to safety (O’Connor and Kirtley, 2018).

Can someone have suicidal thoughts and still want to live?

Yes. Ambivalence and conflicting motivations are possible. A person may want intense pain or frightening circumstances to end while retaining meaningful attachments or wishes for the future. Such ambivalence merits assessment because it can change, and it offers a starting point for understanding which supports and interventions could help restore safety and hope.

Are the interpersonal theory, IMV, and 3ST proven explanations?

They are influential, scientifically studied frameworks with evidence supporting several components and partial pathways. Systematic reviews indicate comparatively stronger support for the formation of suicidal ideation and more uncertainty about the transition to attempts. They are not validated instruments for predicting exactly who will attempt suicide (Torino et al., 2026).

Do psychological theories tell a clinician whom to discharge?

No. Theories can improve discussion and clinical formulation, but decisions about urgent care, discharge, and follow-up rest on comprehensive, contextual assessment and professional judgment. NICE specifically advises against using risk scales or global risk categories as the basis for these decisions (NICE NG225).

Can social connection alone resolve suicidal ideation?

Connection may provide meaningful protection and make help easier to obtain, but a person may also need psychiatric care, pain treatment, protection from violence, housing stability, financial assistance, or emergency intervention. Social connection is one part of a comprehensive response. It should be offered with respect for the person's relationships, boundaries, and circumstances.

Which research finding is most important for practice?

Several psychological mechanisms help explain why suicidal thoughts arise, but individual prediction remains limited. The practical consequence is to ask directly about the person's experience, identify recent changes and immediate danger, respond to unmet needs, and arrange effective treatment and continuity of care. This approach is consistent with contemporary clinical guidance and with the evidence that no single theory or score can safely replace individualized assessment (NICE NG225; VA/DoD, 2024).

Conclusion: Understanding Suicidal Thoughts Requires Multiple Levels of Explanation

Contemporary psychological theories clarify different dimensions of suicidal thinking. Mental-pain accounts illuminate unbearable distress; hopelessness theories examine expectations of lasting suffering; interpersonal theory addresses disconnection and the painful belief that one burdens others; the IMV model describes defeat and entrapment; the 3ST emphasizes pain, hopelessness, connectedness, and proposed progression to action; and fluid vulnerability perspectives examine how crises change over time. Together, these models provide a language for research and clinical formulation. Their empirical status must be assessed separately for each pathway, population, and outcome.

The strongest conclusion is that the emergence of suicidal ideation and the occurrence of suicidal behavior are related but distinct phenomena. Evidence for factors associated with ideation cannot be treated as accurate individual prediction of attempts or death. A person-centered response integrates psychological understanding with psychiatric and medical assessment, environmental safety, human connection, practical support, and ongoing care. Research advances when it specifies what theories explain, tests their causal claims rigorously, and measures outcomes that improve human safety and recovery.

Related Articles

Suicidal Thoughts Without Depression: Causes and Assessment — Diagnostic boundaries, nondepressive clinical contexts, and the individualized meaning of suicidal thoughts.

Chronic Suicidal Ideation: Assessment, Treatment, and Support — Persistent thoughts, dynamic risk, and long-term care pathways.

Suicide Risk After a Previous Attempt: Assessment and Follow-Up — Longitudinal vulnerability, postattempt assessment, and clinical follow-up.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Suicide Prevention: Evidence and Practice — Treatment mechanisms and outcome-specific evidence.

Suicidal OCD: What Is It? Intrusive Self-Harm Thoughts, Compulsions, and the Difference From Suicidal Intent — Careful differentiation of ego-dystonic obsessions and suicidal intent.

Bipolar Disorder and Suicide Risk: Evidence, Warning Signs, and Care — Mood-episode-specific assessment and care.

Suicide Risk in Autistic Adults: Evidence, Assessment, and Prevention — Population-specific findings and accessible assessment.

Mental Health Crisis Services: When to Call 988 or Emergency Services — Urgent US crisis-support pathways and emergency thresholds.

Suicidal Ideation: Meaning, Types, and Clinical Significance — Definitions and types of suicidal thinking, clinical assessment, and evidence-based safety considerations.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Risk and protective factors for suicide. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Preventing suicide. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Ducasse, D., et al. (2018). Psychological pain in suicidality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.16r10732

Franklin, J. C., et al. (2017). Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 187–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084

Kirshenbaum, J. S., Pagliaccio, D., Bitran, A., Xu, E., and Auerbach, R. P. (2024). Why do adolescents attempt suicide? Insights from leading ideation-to-action suicide theories: A systematic review. Translational Psychiatry, 14, 266. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-02914-y

Klonsky, E. D., and May, A. M. (2015). The Three-Step Theory (3ST): A new theory of suicide rooted in the ideation-to-action framework. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 8(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2015.8.2.114

Klonsky, E. D., Saffer, B. Y., and Bryan, C. J. (2018). Ideation-to-action theories of suicide: A conceptual and empirical update. Current Opinion in Psychology, 22, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.020

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2022). Self-harm: Assessment, management and preventing recurrence (NG225). NICE guideline NG225.

National Institute of Mental Health. (2025). Warning signs of suicide. US National Institutes of Health.

National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) toolkit. US National Institutes of Health.

O’Connor, R. C., and Kirtley, O. J. (2018). The integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373, 20170268. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0268

Ribeiro, J. D., Huang, X., Fox, K. R., and Franklin, J. C. (2018). Depression and hopelessness as risk factors for suicide ideation, attempts and death: Meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.27

Souza, K., Sosu, E. M., Thomson, S., and Rasmussen, S. (2024). A systematic review of the studies testing the integrated motivational-volitional model of suicidal behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 18(4), 698–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2336013

Stanley, B., et al. (2018). Comparison of the Safety Planning Intervention with follow-up vs usual care of suicidal patients treated in the emergency department. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(9), 894–900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1776

Torino, G., Calati, R., Brambilla, P., and Delvecchio, G. (2026). Ideation-to-action framework of suicide: A systematic review of the Integrated Motivational-Volitional model and the Three-Step Theory. Journal of Affective Disorders, 399, 121138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.121138

US Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. (2024). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for assessment and management of patients at risk for suicide. VA/DoD.

Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., and Joiner, T. E. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697

Verrocchio, M. C., Carrozzino, D., Marchetti, D., Andreasson, K., Fulcheri, M., and Bech, P. (2016). Mental pain and suicide: A systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00108

World Health Organization. (2026). Suicide: Fact sheet. WHO.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). LIVE LIFE initiative for suicide prevention. WHO.