Elizabeth C. Hoelscher

Background: Transgender and nonbinary (trans) people face elevated risk for suicidal ideation (SI); yet, many do not experience SI, necessitating study of mechanisms contributing to, or buffering against, trans suicide risk. Gender minority stress and resilience theories have been tested cross-sectionally; however, no work has tested these models in the daily lives of suicidal trans adults. Methods: Trans adults with past-month suicidal thoughts or behaviors ( N = 47) were enrolled for a virtual research study involving a baseline set of interviews and questionnaires, followed by a 4-week ecological momentary assessment protocol. Ecological momentary assessment surveys were administered six times daily and assessed various minority stressors and momentary SI; each day’s first survey assessed resilience factors. Dynamic structural equation modeling was used to disentangle within- and between-person effects of minority stress and resilience factors on changes in SI. Results: We observed that interpersonal and intrapersonal minority stressors predicted proximal within-person changes in SI over several hours; however, between-person estimates of resilience did not moderate the minority stress–SI relationship, as argued by extant theory. Conclusions: Although the sample demonstrated adequate geographic, age, and gender diversity, participants were primarily White, limiting generalizability to racial minority trans people, and those outside the United States. Results suggest that interventions targeting minority stress and resilience factors may be appropriate for suicidal trans people, alongside social and political efforts to address discrimination and other interpersonal harms faced by trans people.

Objectives: Negative emotions have been well studied in relation to suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs); however, little research in these areas have been informed by affective science frameworks that consider the complex and time varying nature of STBs. Emotion differentiation is well‐validated as one such core construct in affective science. The present study is the first to examine negative emotion differentiation in relation to STBs and in a sample at heightened risk for suicide. In addition, to investigate how emotion differentiation relates to real time measures of emotion regulation, we examined the relationship between negative emotion differentiation and facets of affective dynamics (i.e., affective inertia, intensity, and variability). Methods: Adults leaving psychiatric inpatient care ( n = 68) with recent STBs completed semi‐structured interviews, self‐report measures, and a 4‐week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol in the period from 2021 to 2023. Results: Results indicated no significant relationship between negative emotion differentiation and STBs (suicidal ideation duration, frequency, controllability, severity, nor suicide attempt history) when measured retrospectively or concurrently. However, negative emotion differentiation was significantly related to only some negative affective dynamics (i.e., inertia and variability). Conclusions: These findings have important clinical implications regarding type and timing of treatment for STBs.