Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41907853›Full record

ArticleThe Sociological review2024

Nonsuicidal self-injury and intersubjective recognition: 'You can't argue with wounds'.

Peter Steggals, Ruth Graham, Steph Lawler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Sociological review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Critically Exploring Self-Harm Through Lived Experience Perspectives: A Survivor-Controlled Integrative Review Employing Participatory Methodology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter SteggalsNewcastle University, UK.
Ruth GrahamNewcastle University, UK.
Steph LawlerUniversity of York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores the relevance of intersubjective recognition and the 'recognition theoretical turn' to our understanding of nonsuicidal self-injury. While previous research has demonstrated that self-injury possesses an important social dimension alongside its intrapsychic characteristics, a major challenge for any social approach to self-injury has been to find a way to describe and analyse this dimension without reductively implying that self-injury is a form of 'attention-seeking', where this describes a pejorative accusation of social manipulation. One possible solution to this challenge lies in the concept of intersubjective recognition and the idea that what some have interpreted as 'attention-seeking' behaviour is perhaps better understood as recognition-seeking. As such, we draw on data from a 2016-2017 English pilot study to examine three basic questions: (1) does self-injury constitute, at least in some cases and amongst its many other observed intrapsychic and social functions, a form of recognition-seeking? (2) if so, how does self-injury work as a claim to recognition? and (3), how do we solve the apparent contradiction of using a stigmatic mark as a means of claiming a normative status? Our study suggests that one of self-injury's intersubjective imperatives is the need to be listened to and taken seriously, to have one's feelings and experiences confirmed by others as being legitimate and valid. As such, intersubjective recognition does appear to form a distinct part of the overdetermined complex of meanings and effects associated with self-injury and may be an important factor in a number of cases.

Indexed as

intersubjectivitynonsuicidal self-injuryrecognitionself-harmstigma

Identifiers

PMID41907853
PMCPMC13029424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.