Abstract
Introduction
It is common practice for researchers to monitor responses to items assessing suicidal ideation and follow-up with high-risk participants, when their identities are known. However, it is becoming increasingly common for researchers to administer fully anonymous online surveys that do not allow for follow-ups with participants at higher risk. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether these two different approaches—monitoring and follow-up versus no monitoring or follow-up—affect the willingness of participants to endorse suicidal ideation.
Methods
The sample included N = 555 undergraduate students, who were randomly assigned to the monitoring (n = 275) or anonymous (n = 280) instruction conditions, with the monitoring condition shifting to anonymous, non-monitored responses at Time 2.
Results
There were no significant differences in self-reported suicidal ideation between those in the monitoring and anonymous condition at Time 1. At Time 2, no significant interaction was identified between condition and time, suggesting that the change in instructions across timepoints for the monitoring condition had no impact on endorsement of suicidal ideation.
Conclusion
Findings indicate that both monitoring and anonymous instruction methods should elicit the same pattern of endorsements of suicidal ideation.