Developmental Assets and Their Relationship to Suicidal Behavior in Mexican Young Adults

Abstract

Suicide in young people is a public health problem. Typically, protective factors for suicide are not studied; research tends to focus on measuring risk factors. However, knowing the risk factors does not mean that we also know the opposing factors that influence a group’s health problems. For this reason, we examined the relationship between developmental assets in Mexican youth aged 18 to 25 years who are not at risk for suicide, exhibit self-injurious behavior, and whose last suicide attempt had low or high lethality. A cross-sectional study of 478 young people (73% female and 27% male) from Mexico City was conducted using an online survey and correlations were tested with dummy variables (groups) and multinomial logistic regression. The no-risk group showed associations with all developmental assets, the self-injurious group had an association with the house rules variable, the low lethality group was correlated with twelve assets and the high lethality group with four assets. Four internal developmental strengths were significant in the regression model: avoidance of risk behaviors, school expectations, resistance to pressure, and expression of anger. These results suggest that PYD is a useful framework for examining suicide risk and promotes skill development in young college students.

Full text

Citation: Baza-Arce, O.; Juárez-Loya,
A.; González-Forteza, C.
Developmental Assets and Their
Relationship to Suicidal Behavior in
Mexican Young Adults. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph21081068
Academic Editors: Karl Andriessen
and Paul B. Tchounwou
Received: 8 May 2024
Revised: 12 June 2024
Accepted: 7 August 2024
Published: 15 August 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Developmental Assets and Their Relationship to Suicidal
Behavior in Mexican Young Adults
Omar Baza-Arce 1, Angélica Juárez-Loya 1, * and Catalina González-Forteza 2
1Clinical and Health Psychology Department, Psychology Faculty, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México (UNAM), Mexico City 04510, Mexico; psicomarbaza@gmail.com
2
Epidemiology and Psychosocial Research Department, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente
Muñiz, Mexico City 14370, Mexico; catiartes@gmail.com
*Correspondence: ajuarezloya@comunidad.unam.mx
Abstract: Suicide in young people is a public health problem. Typically, protective factors for suicide
are not studied; research tends to focus on measuring risk factors. However, knowing the risk factors
does not mean that we also know the opposing factors that influence a group’s health problems. For
this reason, we examined the relationship between developmental assets in Mexican youth aged 18 to
25 years who are not at risk for suicide, exhibit self-injurious behavior, and whose last suicide attempt
had low or high lethality. A cross-sectional study of 478 young people (73% female and 27% male)
from Mexico City was conducted using an online survey and correlations were tested with dummy
variables (groups) and multinomial logistic regression. The no-risk group showed associations with
all developmental assets, the self-injurious group had an association with the house rules variable,
the low lethality group was correlated with twelve assets and the high lethality group with four
assets. Four internal developmental strengths were significant in the regression model: avoidance
of risk behaviors, school expectations, resistance to pressure, and expression of anger. These results
suggest that PYD is a useful framework for examining suicide risk and promotes skill development
in young college students.
Keywords: suicidal behavior; positive youth development (PYD) framework; developmental assets;
young students
1. Introduction
Suicide among young people is a worrying problem. Worldwide it was the fourth
leading cause of death among 15–29 year olds in 2019 [
1
]. The 2019 Global Burden of
Disease (GBD) study [
2
] shows that self-harm is the third leading cause of disability among
people aged 10–24.
According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (National
Institute of Statistics and Geography) [
3
], at least 1800 deaths by suicide among people
aged 15 to 24 are recorded annually in Mexico between 2018 and 2021. In 2022, 2002 people
in this age group died (861 people aged 15 to 19 and 1141 people aged 20 to 24).
It is important to examine the factors associated with suicide and the behaviors that
precede it (e.g., self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts). There is a lack
of information on the factors that protect adolescents and young adults from developing
these behaviors. In general, research examines the risk factors for suicide, but this does not
necessarily tell us about the strategies that might prevent it.
The Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework states that developmental assets
promote improvement in social, academic, or vocational skills and lead to improved well-
being and good mental health [
4
]. This model originates from community [
5
] and positive
psychology [6].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21081068 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 2 of 11
According to the PYD framework (a) youth who realize their full potential are less
likely to have problems, (b) support and opportunities are important for youth success,
(c) communities can improve their capacity to build successful youth, and (d) youth should
be seen as people who need to be nurtured and developed, not as people with problems [
7
].
The Search Institute’s Developmental Assets Framework is one of the most widely
used and influential frameworks for PYD. It proposes 40 developmental assets, half of
which are internal and the other half external [8].
External assets were defined as experiences and opportunities in family, school, youth
programs, and communities that promote youth resilience and thriving. These were
grouped into four categories: support (and acceptance by others), empowerment (in terms
of feeling valued and valuable, feeling safe and respected), boundaries and expectations
(because young people need clear rules, consistent consequences for breaking rules, and
encouragement to do their best), and constructive use of time (meaning they deserve to
develop new skills and interests outside of school) [8].
Internal assets are personal skills, values and self-perceptions that help young people
make good choices, take responsibility for their own lives, be independent and thrive.
They are grouped into four categories: commitment to learning (a sense of the enduring
importance of learning and recognition of their own abilities), positive values (principles
that help them make healthy life choices), social competencies (skills to interact effectively
with others, make difficult decisions, and deal with new situations), and a positive identity
(young people need to believe in their own self-worth and feel that they have control over
the things that happen to them) [8].
Regarding suicide, developmental assets were mainly studied in adolescents (aged
12 to 19 years). As expected, some authors reported that the ability to make decisions,
general self-confidence, general hope for the future, religiosity, good health practices,
family communication, parental supervision, positive relationship with mother, appropriate
time management, connectedness to school, commitment to community [
9
], commitment
to learning, positive values, social skills, positive identity, support, self-determination,
clarification of boundaries, and set expectations protected them from sadness [
10
], suicidal
ideation [9], and suicide attempts [10].
In another study, developmental assets were associated with academic stress, suicide
risk and emotional regulation self-efficacy. Controlling by gender, developmental assets
moderated the relationship between emotional regulation self-efficacy and suicide risk.
In addition, higher levels of developmental assets limited the indirect effects of academic
stress on suicide risk through emotional regulation self-efficacy [11].
In a Mexican study, two groups of adolescents aged 15 to 18 years (with and without
suicide attempt) were compared to examine differences between developmental strengths.
They found differences between external assets (mother’s support and supervision and
father’s support and supervision) and internal assets (importance to health, avoidance of
risk behaviors, and decision making) [12].
Therefore, we set out to examine the relationship between developmental assets
and risk level of last suicide attempt in Mexican youths aged 18 to 21 years. We wanted
to investigate the protective factors that should be promoted to ideally contribute to a
reduction in suicide prevalence. To this end, we compared youth without a history of
suicidal behavior (who were classified as not suicidal) with youth who had experienced
three types of suicide attempts: (a) self-injurious behavior, in which individuals expressed
a desire to live despite the attempt; (b) low-lethality suicide attempts, in which individuals
reported hurting themselves without a clear intention to die (ambiguity); and (c) high-
lethality suicide attempts, in which individuals had a clear desire to die but did not
accomplish it. This conceptualization of suicidal behavior is supported by research that
has identified four latent classes [
13
–
15
] in the analysis of suicidal behavior and associated
psychosocial factors among adolescents in Campeche, Guanajuato and Querétaro (Mexico).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 3 of 11
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Setting, and Population
A cross-sectional study was conducted in which 478 young people (73% female and
27% male) from Mexico City with an average age of 21 years (SD = 1.88) were studied.
Most of the participants attended college (89.3%), 6.5% attended high school, and the
rest had another degree (4%). Sampling was defined as non-probabilistic and intentional.
Given the 554,990 college students enrolled in Mexico City for 2020–2021 [
16
], we applied a
95 confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and a 50 population proportion to the formula.
This resulted in 384 participants. However, given the low control conditions of this sample,
we decided to study at least 500 individuals.
2.2. Constructs and Measurements
2.2.1. Internal and External Assets for Adolescents (FIE-AR)
The test consisted of 65 Likert-type items with 5 response options assessing 14 devel-
opmental assets, 6 external (mother’s supervision, mother ’s support, father’s supervision
and support, house rules, friends without risk behavior, and healthy friends) and 8 in-
ternal (responsibility, importance of health, avoidance of risk behaviors, resistance to
pressure, importance of religion, decision making, expression of anger, and school ex-
pectations). The confirmatory factor analysis yielded a model that was a good fit with
the external (
X2= 3326.14
,degrees of freedom = 1013, Root Mean Squared Error of Approx-
imation (RMSEA) = 0.039, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (
0.038–0.041
), Comparative Fit
Index
(CFI) = 0.983
) and internal assets (X
2
= 1491.63, df = 499, RMSEA = 0.037, 95% CI
(
0.034–0.039
), CFI = 0.986). In addition, the Cronbach’s alphas for the external assets were
between 0.62 and 0.96 for the subscales and between 0.65 and 0.93 for the internal assets [
17
].
2.2.2. Suicidal Behaviors Schedule (CCS)
The Suicidal Behaviors Schedule (Cédula de Conductas Suicidas) was used as a
screening instrument to determine differences between self-harm and low or high risk of a
last suicide attempt (called lethality). The first questions investigated whether participants
had self-harmed, cut or poisoned themselves in order to take their own lives. They were
also asked about the number of suicide attempts, age at first and last attempt, purpose,
motivation, methods used, and use of mental health services (in the form of open-ended
questions), as well as an indicator of the lethality of these behaviors (i.e., the desire to die
by suicide). Combining the data on suicidal behavior with the indicator of the degree of
risk of the last suicide attempt (classified by the desire to die) provides information to
better understand and characterize the type of single or last suicidal behavior (categorized
as no-risk, self-injurious behavior, low-lethality suicide attempt, or high-lethality suicide
attempt) [13,18].
Numerous studies with Mexican adolescents have shown that the questionnaire has
concordant validity with variables such as depression, drug use and impulsivity and
divergent validity with family relationships, self-esteem, and internal locus of control in
relation to suicidality [13,18,19].
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
Data were collected using an electronic questionnaire via Google forms (free version,
Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA). Participants were invited via the college’s social
networks in the first quarter of 2022. The only requirements were that they were studying
at the time of answering the survey, lived in Mexico City, and were between 18 and 25 years
old (601 young people answered the questionnaire, but the cases that did not meet the
criteria described were removed from the database).
Taking into account the Declaration of Helsinki [
20
], participants were informed via
a consent form about the conditions of their participation and the handling of the data
collected (no personal data were requested) and also received information about low-cost
mental health centers for young people.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 4 of 11
The program Jamovi (version 2.3.28, The Jamovi Project, Newcastle, Australia) [
21
]
was used to standardize the values of the scales (with the intention of allowing a fair
comparison between the values of the scales involved), and to examine the data with
descriptive statistics, we created dummy variables with suicide risk categories to test
associations with developmental assets through Spearman’s rho test. In this way, we can
determine which developmental assets are most strongly associated with each risk group.
Finally, a multinomial logistic regression model was conducted to assess the no-risk group
versus the self-injurious behavior group, the no-risk group versus the low-lethality suicide
attempt group, and the no-risk group versus the high-lethality suicide attempt group. We
considered that the no-risk group gave us a better understanding of the developmental
assets that could prevent suicidal behavior.
3. Results
Table 1shows the proportion of cases analyzed according to the degree of suicide
attempt risk and gender. Most of the sample was not at risk of suicide, and 27% of the
sample was at some risk.
Table 1. Descriptive outcomes by suicide risk levels and sex.
Counts % of Total
Suicide Risk Levels Women Men Women Men % of Total
High-lethality suicide attempt 30 7 6.3% 1.5% 7.8%
Low-lethality suicide attempt 56 18 11.8% 3.8% 15.6%
Self-injurious behavior 16 1 3.4% 0.2% 3.6%
No-risk 245 103 51.5% 21.5% 73.0%
The group correlation test (dummy variables) showed mostly positive associations
with all developmental assets for the no-risk group, an inverse association was only found
for the variables friends without risky behavior (external asset), resistance to pressure and
expression of anger (internal asset). The group with self-injurious behavior only showed an
inverse correlation with the variable house rules (external asset). The low-lethality suicide
attempt group showed an inverse correlation with mother’s supervision and support,
father’s supervision and support (external assets), and six internal assets: responsibility,
importance of health, avoidance of risk behaviors, importance of religion, decision making,
and school expectations. In addition, this group showed a direct correlation with resistance
to pressure and expression of anger (both internal assets). The high-lethality suicide attempt
group showed an inverse correlation with the external assets: mother’s support and father’s
supervision and support, and with the internal assets: importance of health and school
expectations (Table 2).
The multinomial logistic regression model for the comparison of the group without
risk with the group with self-injurious behavior yielded the following results: the variable
avoidance of risk behavior (internal asset) was a protective factor, meaning that an increase
in the standard deviation of this variable was associated with a lower probability of
belonging to the group with self-injurious behavior (OR = 0.534; 95% CI = 0.290–0.983);
whereas the variable expression of anger (internal asset) was a risk factor, indicating that an
increase in the standard deviation of this variable was associated with a higher likelihood of
belonging to the self-injurious behavior group (OR = 2.233; 95% CI = 1.185–4.209) (Table 3).
In the comparison of the no-risk group with the low-lethality suicide attempt group,
only the variable of anger expression (internal asset) was found to be a risk factor, indicating
that an increase in the standard deviation of this variable was associated with a higher prob-
ability of belonging to the low-lethality group (OR = 2.233;
95% CI = 1.185–4.209
) (
Table 3
).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 5 of 11
Table 2. Correlation Matrix by Suicide risk levels.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. No-risk group —
2. Self-injurious behavior group −
0.317
—
3. Low-lethality suicide attempt group −
0.707
−
0.083
—
4. High-lethality suicide attempt group
−
0.479
−
0.056
−
0.125
—
5. Mother ’s supervision ♦0.213 −
0.043
−
0.206
−
0.043
—
6. Mother ’s support ♦0.216 −
0.015
−
0.178
−
0.108
0.689 —
7. Father ’s supervision and support ♦0.225 −
0.062
−
0.128
−
0.16
0.307 0.406 —
8. House rules ♦0.096 −
0.095
−
0.062
−
0.008
0.298 0.287 0.216 —
9. Friends without risky behavior ♦−
0.129
0.089 0.064 0.064 −
0.171
−
0.002
−
0.074
−0.104 —
10. Healthy friends ♦0.126 −
0.063
−
0.084
−0.05 0.217 0.262 0.183 0.132 −
0.028
—
11. Responsibility ♦0.162 0.014 −
0.158
−
0.065
0.294 0.232 0.204 0.124 −
0.067
0.242 —
12. Importance of health ♦0.273 −
0.023
−
0.232
−
0.122
0.305 0.353 0.258 0.14 −
0.023
0.293 0.349 —
13. Avoidance of risk behaviors ♦0.196 −
0.066
−
0.183
−0.03 0.352 0.221 0.196 0.139 −
0.361
0.094 0.224 0.315 —
14. Resistance to pressure ♦−
0.132
0.032 0.133 0.016 −
0.232
−
0.12
−
0.054
−0.035 0.245 −0.047 −
0.154
−0.102 −
0.275
—
15. Importance of religion ♦0.096 −
0.003
−
0.093
−
0.032
0.221 0.268 0.201 0.261 −
0.116
0.046 0.126 0.272 0.263 −0.1 —
16. Decision making ♦0.202 −
0.053
−
0.156
−
0.087
0.21 0.225 0.256 0.03 −
0.013
0.154 0.282 0.312 0.224 −
0.165
−
0.007
—
17. Expression of anger ♦−
0.204
0.088 0.204 0−
0.064
−
0.044
−
0.125
0.013 0.142 −0.12 −
0.092
−0.095 −
0.026
0.054 0.052 −
0.124
—
18. School expectations ♦0.234 −
0.047
−
0.16
−
0.139
0.236 0.228 0.201 0.069 0.015 0.134 0.417 0.373 0.131 −0.08 0.098 0.304 −
0.063
—
♦Denotes a continuous, standardized variable with mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1; bold numbers indicate a confidence interval of p≤0.05 in Spearman’s rho test.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 6 of 11
Table 3. Results of multinomial logistic regression for suicide lethality risk and development assets.
No-Risk vs. Self-Injurious Behavior No-Risk vs. Low-Lethality No-Risk vs. High-Lethality
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Predictor Estimate OR Lower Upper Estimate OR Lower Upper Estimate OR Lower Upper
Intercept −4.042 0.018 0.006 0.052 −1.874 0.154 0.104 0.226 −3.248 0.039 0.018 0.083
Mother’s supervision ♦0.007 1.007 0.385 2.637 −0.104 0.901 0.565 1.436 0.246 1.278 0.634 2.576
Mother’s support ♦0.014 1.014 0.375 2.739 −0.215 0.807 0.492 1.323 −0.059 0.943 0.466 1.907
Father’s supervision and support ♦−0.260 0.771 0.348 1.710 0.024 1.025 0.675 1.555 −0.646 0.524 0.265 1.036
House rules ♦−0.592 0.553 0.255 1.197 −0.078 0.925 0.635 1.347 0.034 1.035 0.595 1.799
Friends without risky behavior ♦0.308 1.360 0.600 3.086 0.163 1.177 0.770 1.798 0.255 1.291 0.698 2.386
Healthy friends ♦−0.655 0.520 0.233 1.156 −0.027 0.973 0.661 1.432 −0.102 0.903 0.496 1.645
Responsibility ♦0.920 2.511 0.995 6.334 0.049 1.050 0.708 1.556 0.476 1.609 0.828 3.125
Importance of health ♦−0.442 0.643 0.287 1.438 −0.304 0.738 0.497 1.096 −0.551 0.577 0.320 1.039
Avoidance of risk behaviors ♦−0.627 0.534 0.290 0.983 −0.258 0.772 0.529 1.129 −0.158 0.854 0.476 1.532
Resistance to pressure ♦−0.053 0.948 0.421 2.139 0.224 1.251 0.881 1.775 0.530 1.698 1.083 2.662
Importance of religion ♦0.170 1.185 0.578 2.431 −0.018 0.983 0.656 1.472 0.101 1.106 0.589 2.080
Decision making ♦−0.046 0.955 0.480 1.899 −0.280 0.756 0.518 1.102 −0.212 0.809 0.447 1.466
Expression of anger ♦0.803 2.233 1.185 4.209 0.632 1.881 1.331 2.657 0.008 1.008 0.590 1.724
School expectations ♦−0.300 0.741 0.341 1.609 −0.330 0.719 0.489 1.057 −0.927 0.396 0.218 0.720
♦
Denotes a continuous, standardized variable with mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1; OR denotes “odds ratio”; 95% CI denotes “95% confidence interval”; No-risk = no-risk of
suicide; Low-lethality = low-lethality suicide attempt group; High-lethality = high-lethality suicide attempt group; the reference variable was “No-risk group”; bold numbers indicate a
confidence interval of p≤0.05. Overall model test: χ2= 118, degrees of freedom = 42, p> 0.001.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 7 of 11
When comparing the no-risk group with the group who attempted suicide with a high
lethality, the resistance to pressure variable (internal asset) proved to be a risk factor, i.e., an
increase in the standard deviation of this variable was associated with a higher probability
of belonging to the group with high lethality (OR = 1.698; 95% CI = 1.083–2.662). In contrast,
the variable school expectations (internal asset) proved to be a protective factor, as an
increase in the standard deviation of this variable was associated with a lower probability
of belonging to the high lethality group (OR = 1.698; 95% CI = 1.083–2.662). See Table 3.
4. Discussion
Suicide in young people needs to be looked at from different angles. The PYD frame-
work [
8
] gave us some positive and alternative explanations that promote well-being and
mental health in young people. The main idea behind this study was to investigate the
relationship between developmental assets and risk level of last suicide attempt in Mexican
youth students (18–21 years old).
In the correlation analysis with dummy variables by group, the no-risk group showed
positive associations with most developmental assets.
Among the external development assets, the quality of parental supervision and
support were positively associated with belonging to this group, as was the presence of
rules at home. Parental supervision and support were also inversely related to belonging
to the low and high-lethality suicide attempt groups, confirming that the lower the quality
of the relationship with parents, the greater the likelihood of belonging to these two
groups. An inverse relationship was observed between home rules and the self-injurious
behavior group, suggesting that the fewer rules there are at home, the higher the likelihood
of self-harm.
In the previous literature on risk factors for suicide in adolescents, parental relation-
ship and supervision play a protective role in suicidal behavior [9,10,22], but also in other
problems such as substance use and depression [
10
,
15
,
22
]. Another study on college stu-
dents, which examined the family environment (socioeconomic level, parents’ relationship,
parents’ level of education, parents’ occupation and number of siblings), went in the same
direction. The participants with suicidal ideation showed similarities in that their family
suffered from poverty, had poor family relationships, parents had job insecurity, and may
have had an inappropriate parenting style [23].
In terms of friends, the analysis showed that the perception of having healthy friends
and having more friends without risky behavior (this category is reverse scored on the
scale, i.e., a lower score means that the characteristic is more pronounced) are associated
with belonging to the no-risk group. No correlation was found between the variables of
friends and risk groups. Some studies have shown that suicidality is lower in youth with
stronger social ties to peers, family or other adults. These relationships affect psychological
well-being [
24
], increase help-seeking [
25
], and promote adaptive coping [
26
]. One of
the internal developmental assets identified in association with the non-risk group was
responsibility. As expected, the greater the responsibility, the greater the likelihood of
belonging to the no-risk group. This variable was also significant, but negative, in the low-
lethality suicide attempt group, i.e., individuals who were undecided about their desire to
die but made an attempt anyway, a behavior that could be explained by impulsivity or low
responsibility for oneself. One study has shown that responsible decision making reduces
the likelihood of suicidal ideation in young people. Interventions to promote responsible
decision making, good health practices and general self-awareness can improve young
people’s overall mental health [9].
Avoidance of risk behaviors (internal asset) was significantly associated with the no
risk behaviors group (positive association) and with the low lethality group (negative
association), and in the regression model, greater avoidance of risk behaviors led to a lower
likelihood of belonging to the self-injurious behavior group (as opposed to the no risk
behaviors group). This confirms that young people who make responsible choices and are
self-aware, as mentioned by Lensch et al. [9], are more likely to be healthy.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 8 of 11
Importance to health was positively related to the no-risk group and negatively related
to the groups with low and high lethality. This result is consistent with the study by
Lensch et al. [9], in which health practices were a protective factor for suicidal ideation.
Decision making was positively related to the no-risk group and negatively related to
the low-lethality group but was not significant in the regression model. As Lensch et al. [
9
]
report, this is an important skill for young people and appears to be an important topic for
health promotion.
Another internal asset that was negatively associated with the no-risk group was
resistance to pressure. It was also positively associated with the low-lethality group and
was seen to be a risk factor for being in the high-lethality suicide attempts group in the
regression model. It seems that young people who endure more than a certain level of
pressure learn to tolerate an undesirable level of social stress, which probably leads to
emotional stress and, in combination with other factors, to a higher risk of suicidal behavior.
Wiium et al. [
10
] reported in their study that resistance to pressure is a social skill and they
observed more competencies in groups without persistent sadness and no suicide attempts.
The importance of religion had a positive correlation with the no-risk group, a negative
correlation with the low-risk group, and no significance in the regression model. Previous
research had reported that religiosity is a protective factor against suicide [
27
], but our
results did not show this.
In the Spearman test, the variable expression of anger showed a negative association
with the no-risk group, a positive association with the low-lethality group, and a null asso-
ciation with the high-lethality group. There was also a risk factor in the regression model
for self-injurious behavior and the low-lethality groups. This information is consistent with
the literature, which has reported that increased anger is associated with a higher risk of
suicide [
11
,
28
,
29
]. Indeed, the literature reports that inadequate anger management is a
primary factor influencing self-injurious behavior [30].
School expectations were positively related to the no-risk group, negatively related to
the low- and high-lethality groups, and found to be a protective factor for the high-lethality
group. Previous research had reported in a recent meta-analysis [
31
] and in studies by
Lensch et al. [
9
] that school connectedness is a protective factor against suicidal ideation
and behavior.
All developmental assets were associated with the no-risk group, confirming their
importance for better youth development. The results of this study shed light on the Search
Institute’s Developmental Assets Framework [
8
] in young adults and show that they are as
important in young students as they are in adolescence.
The findings on external developmental assets (parents’ supervision and support and
house rules) confirm that the family environment needs to be proactive and supportive in
order to provide young people with a sense of autonomy, responsibility and skill, while
providing adult support and supervision. Regarding the role of friends, it is important to
collect more data and explore suicide prevention programs that target peer relationships.
These types of interventions could help young people strengthen their bonds, seek support
and expand their peer networks. An example of this could be the Guardians program,
where peers gain the skills to recognize early signs of suicide risk, assess the level of risk,
and have motivational conversations with at-risk individuals. They can also refer people to
appropriate screening and treatment [32].
Only the internal development assets were significant in the regression model. Risk
avoidance behavior and school expectations were protective for the self-injurious behavior
group and for the high-lethality group. In contrast, anger expression (significant for the
self-injurious behavior and low lethality groups) and resistance to pressure (significant for
the high lethality group) were risk factors.
These data suggest that school continues to play an indispensable role in the well-
being of young people. To the extent that they are empowered in emotion regulation and
decision making, this may also have an impact on suicide risk. Suicide prevention and
mental health promotion programs can be implemented in schools. Examples of prevention

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 9 of 11
programs in school settings have shown that students who benefit from these programs are
less likely to experience depressive episodes, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts than
other schools that do not benefit from these programs [33].
Limitations
Due to the nature of the data (cross-sectional measurement and not a representative
sample of the college population), the results should be interpreted with caution. However,
this study provides a picture of the importance of developmental assets and their role
in relation to youth who reported having attempted suicide for various reasons. It is
advisable to replicate the study, but now selecting a representative sample of the university
population and trying to achieve a balance between men and women and to increase the
number of individuals reporting different levels of risk. With a sample that has these
characteristics, it would be possible to draw more reliable conclusions.
5. Conclusions
We hypothesized that developmental assets would be protective factors for suicide risk
in young Mexican college students. As expected, all developmental assets in the correlation
test were associated with the no suicide risk group and some of them had theoretical
agreement with the groups categorized as young people with self-injurious behavior and
with the low and high-lethality suicide attempt risk groups.
According to the logistic regression model evaluated in this sample, four internal
developmental strengths were significant: avoidance of risk behaviors, school expectations,
resistance to pressure, and expression of anger. These aspects have been associated with
suicidal behavior [
9
–
11
,
28
–
31
], and we can recommend based on this research that these
aspects can be implemented in intervention and prevention programs for suicidal behavior
in young students.
These interventions should focus on helping youth strengthen their relationship with
educational institutions and view school as a safe environment in which they can grow
academically and personally.
Emotional dysregulation should also be at the center of any intervention to impact
suicide risk. This includes life skills training, such as decision making to avoid risky
practices, or promoting functional coping strategies to reduce tolerance to pressure and
deal appropriately with stressful situations they are exposed to.
It is also recommended to measure representative samples of this population and
promote applied research to evaluate the impact of suicide prevention programs in Mex-
ican youth, with developmental assets that can determine the objectives of these types
of programs.
The PYD framework is a valid theory and requires further scientific evidence in the
Mexican context for the prevention of different risk factors in adolescence and youth.
It is recommended to develop a more complete psychometric instrument that includes
40 developmental assets. It is also important to further investigate suicide risk using the
PYD framework.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.B.-A. and A.J.-L.; methodology, A.J.-L. and C.G.-F.;
formal analysis, O.B.-A., A.J.-L. and C.G.-F.; investigation, O.B.-A.; data curation, O.B.-A. and A.J.-L.;
writing—original draft preparation, O.B.-A., A.J.-L. and C.G.-F.; writing—review and editing, A.J.-L.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This work was approved by the Academic Committee of
the Graduate Program in Clinical and Health Psychology of the National Autonomous University
of Mexico, which ensures compliance with the guidelines of the College’s Code of Ethics and the
Universal Ethics Statements for Research Involving Human Subjects.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals involved in
the study.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 10 of 11
Data Availability Statement: Data are not available due to ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
World Health Organization. Suicide Worldwide in 2019 Global Health Estimates. Available online: https://www.who.int/
publications-detail-redirect/9789240026643 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
2.
Abbafati, C.; Abbas, K.M.; Abbasi, M.; Abbasifard, M.; Abbasi-Kangevari, M.; Abbastabar, H.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdelalim, A.;
Abdollahi, M.; Abdollahpour, I.; et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020,396, 1204. [CrossRef]
3.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Defunciones por Suicidio por Entidad Federativa de Residencia Habitual de
la Persona Fallecida Según Sexo, Serie Anual de 2010 a 2020. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/tabulados/
interactivos/?pxq=Salud_Mental_06_0ce246dc-784f-4198-807b-4375a1612693 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
4.
Oliva, A.; Pertegal, M.Á.; Antolín, L.; Reina, M.C.; Ríos, M.; Hernando, Á.; Parra, Á.; Pascual, D.M.; Estévez, R.M. Desarrollo
Positivo Adolescente y los Activos que lo Promueven, 1st ed.; Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Salud: Seville, Spain, 2017.
5.
Albee, G.W. A competency model to replace the defect model. In Community Psychology: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches;
Gibbs, M.S., Lachenmeyer, J.R., Sigal, J., Eds.; Gardner Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 213–238.
6. Seligman, M.; Maier, F. Psicología positiva: Supuestos fundamentales. Psychologist 2003,6, 126–127.
7.
Small, S.; Memmo, M. Contemporary models of youth development and problem prevention: Toward an integration of terms,
concepts, and models. Fam. Relat. 2004,53, 3–11. [CrossRef]
8.
Search Institute. Developmental Assets Framework. Available online: https://searchinstitute.org/resources-hub/developmental-
assets-framework (accessed on 12 February 2022).
9.
Lensch, T.; Clements-Nolle, K.; Oman, R.F.; Lu, M.; Dominguez, A. Prospective impact of individual, family and community
youth assets on adolescent suicide ideation. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2019,73, 219–224. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Wiium, N.; Beck, M.; Ferrer-Wreder, L. The Importance of Developmental Assets to Mental Health in Norwegian Youth. Front.
Psychol. 2021,12, 687537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Ying, J.; You, J.; Guo, J. The protective effects of youth assets on the associations among academic stress, regulatory emotional
self-efficacy, and suicidal risk: A moderated mediation model. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020,119, 105660. [CrossRef]
12.
Moreno-Carmona, N.D.; Andrade-Palos, P.; Betancourt-Ocampo, D. Fortalezas en adolescentes de Colombia y México que nunca
han intentado suicidarse. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Niñez Juv. 2018,16, 797–807. [CrossRef]
13.
González-Forteza, C.; Juárez-López, C.E.; Jiménez, A.; Montejo-León, L.; Rodríguez-Santisbón, U.R.; Wagner, F.A. Suicide
behavior and associated psychosocial factors among adolescents in Campeche, Mexico. Prev. Med. 2017,105, 206–211. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
14.
Chávez-Hernández, A.-M.; González-Forteza, C.; Juárez, A.; Vega, D.V.; Tapia, A.J. Ideación y tentativas suicidas en estudiantes
del nivel medio del estado de Guanajuato, México. Acta Univ. 2015,25, 43–50. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/
articulo.oa?id=41643128004 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
15.
Garbus, P.; González-Forteza, C.; Cano, M.; Jiménez, A.; Juárez-Loya, A.; Wagner, F.A. Suicidal behavior in Mexican adolescents:
A test of a latent class model using two independent probability samples. Prev. Med. 2022,157, 106984. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Matrícula Escolar por Entidad Federativa Según Nivel Educativo, Ciclos Escolares
Seleccionados de 2000/2001 a 2022/2023. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/tabulados/interactivos/?pxq=ac130
59d-e874-4962-93bb-74f2c58a3cb9 (accessed on 16 May 2023).
17.
Betancourt-Ocampo, D.; Andrade-Palos, P.; Marín-Martínez, A. Análisis psicométrico de la versión revisada de la escala de
fortalezas internas y externas para adolescentes (FIE-AR). Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Soc. 2019,10, 20–39. [CrossRef]
18.
Hermosillo-de-la-Torre, A.E.; Arteaga-de-Luna, S.M.; Acevedo-Rojas, D.L.; Juárez-Loya, A.; Jiménez-Tapia, J.A.; Pedroza-
Cabrera, F.J.; González-Forteza, C.; Cano, M.; Wagner, F.A. Psychosocial correlates of suicidal behavior among adolescents under
confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Aguascalientes, Mexico: A cross-sectional population survey. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2021,18, 4977. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Arenas-Monreal, L.; Hidalgo-Solórzano, E.; Chong-Escudero, X.; Durán-de la Cruz, J.A.; González-Cruz, N.L.; Pérez-Matus, S.;
Valdez-Santiago, R. Suicidal behaviour in adolescents: Educational interventions in Mexico. Health Soc. Care Community 2021,30,
998–1005. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
The World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-
involving-human-subjects/ (accessed on 6 September 2022).
21.
The Jamovi Project. Jamovi, Version 2.3.28; The Jamovi Project: Newcastle, Australia, 2023. Available online: https://www.jamovi.
org (accessed on 10 September 2022).
22.
Chang, E.C.; Chang, O.D.; Martos, T.; Sallay, V.; Lee, J.; Stam, K.R.; Batterbee, C.N.H.; Yu, T. Family Support as a Moderator of the
Relationship between Loneliness and Suicide Risk in College Students: Having a Supportive Family Matters. Fam. J. 2017,25,
257–263. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 1068 11 of 11
23.
Zhai, H.; Bai, B.; Chen, L.; Han, D.; Wang, L.; Qiao, Z.; Qiu, X.; Yang, X.; Yang, Y. Correlation between Family Environment and
Suicidal Ideation in University Students in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015,12, 1412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Whitlock, J.; Wyman, P.A.; Moore, S.R. Connectedness and Suicide Prevention in Adolescents: Pathways and Implications. Suicide
Life-Threat. Behav. 2014,44, 246–272. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Pisani, A.R.; Schmeelk-Cone, K.; Gunzler, D.; Petrova, M.; Goldston, D.B.; Tu, X.; Wyman, P.A. Associations between suicidal high
school students’ help-seeking and their attitudes and perceptions of social environment. J. Youth Adolesc. 2012,41, 1312–1324.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Wyman, P.A.; Brown, C.H.; LoMurray, M.; Schmeelk-Cone, K.; Petrova, M.; Yu, Q.; Walsh, E.; Tu, X.; Wang, W. An outcome
evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. Am. J.
Public Health 2010,100, 1653–1661. [CrossRef]
27.
Eskin, M.; Poyrazli, S.; Janghorbani, M.; Bakhshi, S.; Carta, M.G.; Moro, M.F.; Tran, U.S.; Voracek, M.; Mechri, A.; Aidoudi, K.; et al.
The Role of Religion in Suicidal Behavior, Attitudes and Psychological Distress among University Students: A Multinational
Study. Transcult. Psychiatry 2019,56, 853–877. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Hu, C.S.; Huang, J.; Huang, C.; Munroe, M.; Xie, D.; Li, M. Expressions of anger during advising on life dilemmas predict suicide
risk among college students. PsyCh J. 2022,11, 370–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Dillon, K.H.; van Voorhees, E.E.; Elbogen, E.B. Associations between anger and suicidal ideation and attempts: A prospective
study using the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2020,122, 17–21. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
30.
Cipriano, A.; Claes, L.; Gandhi, A.; Cella, S.; Cotrufo, P. Does Anger Expression Mediate the Relationship between Parental
Rejection and Direct and Indirect Forms of Non-suicidal Self-injury? J. Child Fam. Stud. 2020,29, 3575–3585. [CrossRef]
31.
Marraccini, M.E.; Brier, Z.M.F. School connectedness and suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A systematic meta-analysis. Sch.
Psychol. Q. 2017,32, 5–21. [CrossRef]
32.
Santillán, T.C.S.; Suárez, O.J.S. Entrenamiento en Guardianes para la prevención del suicidio en estudiantes. Rev. Digit. Univ.
2023,24, 1–13. [CrossRef]
33.
Paschall, M.J.; Bersamin, M. School-Based Health Centers, Depression, and Suicide Risk among Adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med.
2018,54, 44–50. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.