Joiner's New Theory

Thomas Joiner’s Theory: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

(The theory is good, the criticisms sometimes ugly)

David Lester

            Thomas Joiner’s Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITS) has received a lot of criticism, both in print (e.g., Paniagua, et al. 2010) and informally among suicidologists. The two major criticisms are that it is not new (Durkheim already proposed thwarted belongingness) and that it is dominating the field. Both are unfair. Let’s first look at whether it is new.

            To be sure, thwarted belongingness is not new. Durkheim’s concept of social integration is somewhat similar to thwarted belongingness, but actually Raul Naroll’s concept of thwarting disorientation (Lester, 1995) is closer to thwarted belongingness. Anyway, using the ideas of earlier people in the field is not a sin. One of my brilliant professors at Cambridge University, Richard Gregory, whose field was perception, admitted that he spent a great deal of time reading German scholars from the late 1800s and then “re-discovering” their insights in modern times. For example, he “discovered” a wonderful crustacean in the Mediterranean that scanned the environment with a receptor, much as television cameras did.

            However, not only was the concept of perceived burdensomeness not a focus of research prior to the ITS, but the concept of the acquired capability for suicide was also barely mentioned in the literature, if at all. As Meatloaf has said in a different context, two out of three ain’t bad. Indeed, those of you who have read my four editions of Why People Kill Themselves, know that, in the first three editions, I chose the leading researchers and theorists of each period. In the fourth and final review of the literature (Lester, 2000), I did not choose anyone because, in my opinion, nothing of note had appeared in the period 1990-1997 (the period covered by the fourth edition). If I had continued my reviews, I would have chosen Joiner alone for the award for the fifth edition. No one else has developed a new theory or opened a new area of research in recent years. I think that the concept of thwarted belongingness could be modified to make it more useful and relevant, but the focus of the ITS on burdensomeness and the acquired capability is brilliant. I have conducted research to test the theory with Joiner (e.g., Pettit, et al., 2002) and independently (Gunn, et al., 2012), some of which has supported the theory and some of which has not been completely supportive.

            One valid criticism of the concept of perceived burdensomeness is that the ITS implies that it is present in all suicides in all cultures, and this is much too extreme. It may be present in some suicides, but not in all. If it is not involved in all suicides, then the theory is limited, and even modifications to the theory by bringing in other variables cannot fully remedy this.

            As for the domination of the theory, there are two relevant objections to complaining about this. First, it is clear that most current researchers in suicidology rarely read (and, therefore, cite) research and theory prior to the year 2000. The use of online searching through PsycInfo and PubMed force this since the most recent articles come up first and because the literature on suicide is now so immense. No one has the time (or the motivation) to scroll down to earlier years. Furthermore, without anyone reviewing the field after I stopped publishing my review every ten years, there is no easy source for finding out what has been written in the past. I have noted how many Introductions in articles seemed to cite only those studies reviewed in the appropriate section of my reviews. The current domination of the ITS is, therefore, understandable. People are not finding and reading earlier alternative theories.

            Second, if the domination of the ITS rubs you the wrong way, then come up with an alternative. It is always easier to criticize than to provide an alternative. If those critics of the domination of the ITS could propose an alternative theory, then, of course, they would do so. A new theory would be exciting, but I am not holding my breath in anticipation of it.

References

Gunn, J. F., Lester, D., Haines, J., & Williams, C. L. (2012). Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness in suicide notes. Crisis, 33, 178-181.

Lester, D. (1995) Thwarting disorientation and suicide. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 14-26.

Lester, D. (2000). Why people kill themselves. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Paniagua, F. A., Black, S. A., Gallaway, M. S., & Coombs, M. A. (2010). The Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of attempted and completed suicide. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.

Pettit, J. W., Lam, A. G., Voelz, Z. R., Walker, R. L., Perez, M., Joiner, T. E., Lester, D., & He, Z. X. (2002). Perceived burdensomeness and lethality of suicide method among suicide completers in the People’s Republic of China. Omega, 45, 57-67.