Ethological Problems with the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide.

LIFE; BIOLOGICAL evolution; SUICIDAL ideation; DEATH; DEFENSE mechanisms (Psychology); BRAIN; HUMAN behavior; BIOLOGY; DECISION making; PSYCHOLOGY; SUICIDE; INTENTION; PAIN; INTERPERSONAL relations; THEORY

Joiner and colleagues' Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS), a prominent "desire-capability" model of suicide—based on the common-sense idea that people take their own lives because they want to, and can—is critiqued from a biological perspective. Tinbergen's ethological "four questions" guide the analysis: evolution, survival value, ontogeny, and proximate causation, each addressing a different aspect of biological understanding. Problems for IPTS emerge with all four. As a parsimonious solution, the desire-capability hypothesis is reconceived as an ultimate, instead of proximate, mode of explanation. By this light, desire and capability for suicide combined in our species' ancestral past, thus making suicide a recurrent survival threat, and driving the evolution of special-purpose defensive adaptations. This stance tallies with the pain-brain theory of the evolution of suicide, and with Joiner and colleagues' own investigation into organismic anti-suicide defenses, which appears to conflict conceptually with IPTS. These defenses' evolved algorithm may make suicide an intrinsically aleatory phenomenon, opaque to usefully accurate prediction. Positive implications for prevention and research are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Omega: Journal of Death & Dying is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)