(PS8-22) Applying Game Theory to Suicidality: The Utility of Living and Dying for Self and Others

Abstract Text: For suicidal ideation to become behaviors, a decision must be made. Suicide continues to be a major concern among the adult population, with around 12.4 million American adults having seriously considered suicide, 3.5 having planned to attempt suicide, and 1.7 having attempted suicide (CDC, 2021). Game theory is a theory of decision making where an individual weighs the cost and benefits of a decision between conflicting objectives (Ross, 2023). Decision making via game theory has been a recent exploration in suicide research and an important factor in understanding this are one's utility for living and dying defined as the importance of the benefits of living/dying diminished by the cost of living/dying for a specific action.

This study aims to explore the extent perceived utility of living and dying for oneself and the perceived utility of living and dying for others predicts suicidal ideation. We predict that higher importance ratings of utility of living for others will negatively predict suicidality and that higher importance ratings of utility of dying for self will strongly predict suicidal ideation when controlling for other variables.

Participants (N = 175, M = 35.78, SD = 10.14, 54% male, 68.45% White/Caucasian/European American) completed an online survey and were considered eligible based on the presence of recent suicidal ideation. They listed three reasons for living and 3 reasons for dying for themselves and for others and rated each on a likert scale of 1 to 5, 1(not at all important)-5(very important). These ratings were then normalized by averaging the three reported ratings for each. The difference of pros-cons was calculated for each measure as the utility for dying for self, living for self, dying for others and living for others. A multiple linear regression was ran to examine if the perceived utility of living for self, utility of dying for self, utility of living for others and utility of dying for others predicts suicidal ideation.

The regression model was statistically significant, F(4, 170) = 6.85, p < .001, accounting for 13.88% of the variance in suicidal ideation (R² = .1388, adjusted R² = .1186). A higher perceived utility of living for oneself was a significant negative predictor of suicidal ideation (β = -1.42, p = .017), whereas a higher perceived utility of dying for oneself was a significant positive predicter of suicidal ideation (β = 1.92, p = .001). However, neither the utility of living for others (β = -0.84, p = .400) nor the utility of dying for others (β = -0.36, p = .680) significantly predicted suicidal ideation.

These findings suggest that utility of living or dying for oneself play a more prominent role in suicidal ideation than perceived utility of living or dying for others. Future research should explore the mechanisms underlying these associations to inform suicide prevention efforts.