| Literature DB >> 28838289 |
Penelope A Hasking1, Martina Di Simplicio2, Peter M McEvoy1,3, Clare S Rees1.
Abstract
Grounded in Emotional Cascade Theory, we explored whether rumination and multisensory imagery-based cognitions moderated the relationships between affect and both odds of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), and frequency of the behaviour. A sample of 393 university students completed self-report questionnaires assessing the constructs of interest. Contrary to expectations, rumination did not emerge as a significant moderator of the affect-NSSI relationship. However, the relationship between affect and frequency of NSSI was moderated by the use of imagery. Further, the relationship between negative affect and NSSI was moderated by positive affect, underscoring the need to consider both negative and positive affect in models of NSSI. Most youth who self-injured reported thinking in images while the urge to self-injure was strong, with 53% thinking in images at least half the time. Future work is needed to explore how positive and negative affect work in concert to govern NSSI, and how imagery might either exacerbate or reduce risk of NSSI.Entities:
Keywords: NSSI; affect; imagery; rumination
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28838289 PMCID: PMC6050645 DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2017.1368456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cogn Emot ISSN: 0269-9931
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables of interest.
| Mean | SD | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. History of NSSI | – | – | – | – | −.28*** | .23*** | .36*** | .09 | .30*** | .06 | .07 |
| 2. Freq. of NSSIa | 7.52 | 15.97 | – | .03 | −.28* | .29* | .35** | −.18 | .14 | −.04 | −.17 |
| 3. Freq. of NSSI imagerya | 4.36 | 2.73 | – | −.04 | .19* | .22* | .07 | .23* | .38*** | .13 | |
| 4. Positive affect | 31.53 | 7.67 | – | −.21*** | −.42*** | .11* | −.26*** | .14** | .04 | ||
| 5. Negative affect | 22.90 | 7.07 | – | .66*** | .33*** | .48*** | .09 | .04 | |||
| 6. Psych. distress | 24.42 | 7.46 | – | .24*** | .58*** | .13* | .08 | ||||
| 7. Affect intensity | 68.82 | 7.28 | – | .29*** | .18** | .09 | |||||
| 8. Repetitive thinking | 33.00 | 8.56 | – | .19*** | .05 | ||||||
| 9. Use of imagery | 41.87 | 7.36 | – | .31*** | |||||||
| 10. Vividness of imagery | 17.67 | 4.07 | – |
aSub-sample who self-injure only.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Regression analyses predicting odds of self-injury (left panel) and frequency of NSSI (right panel).
| Variable | Odds of NSSI | Frequency of NSSI | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SEB | Wald | Exp(B) | 95% CIa | B | SEB | 95% CIb | |||||
| Step 1 | ||||||||||||
| Positive affect | 1.18 | .96 | .34 | |||||||||
| Negative affect | .17 | .001 | .99 | .98 | .72–1.38 | 1.51 | 1.25 | .14 | 1.21 | .23 | ||
| Psych. distress | 1.80 | 1.39 | .16 | 1.30 | .20 | |||||||
| Affect intensity | .12 | .14 | .75 | 1.13 | .39 | .86–1.48 | ||||||
| Step 2 | ||||||||||||
| Repetitive thinking | .30 | .16 | 3.67 | 1.35 | .07 | .98–1.86 | .34 | 1.17 | .03 | .29 | .77 | |
| Use of imagery | .009 | .14 | .005 | 1.01 | .95 | .78–1.32 | 1.12 | .62 | .54 | |||
| Vividness of imagery | .02 | .13 | .01 | 1.02 | .91 | .78–1.32 | 1.10 | 1.36 | .18 | |||
| Step 3c | ||||||||||||
| PA × NA | ||||||||||||
| NA × SUIS | ||||||||||||
| Final model | ||||||||||||
a95% confidence intervals for Exp(B).
b95% confidence intervals for B.
cFor ease of presentation only significant interactions are included in the table; statistically significant results are highlighted in bold text.
PA: positive affect; NA: negative affect; K10: psychological distress; SUIS: spontaneous use of imagery: VVIQ: vividness if imagery.
Figure 1.The relationship between negative affect and odds of NSSI is moderated by positive affect.
Figure 2.The use of imagery moderates the relationship between negative affect and odds of NSSI.
Figure 3.The relationship between negative affect and frequency of NSSI is moderated by positive affect.