EMPIRICAL RESEARCH The Relative Influence of Different Domains of Social Connectedness on Self-Directed Violence in Adolescence Jennifer W. Kaminski • Richard W. Puddy • Diane M. Hall • Sandra Y. Cashman • Alexander E. Crosby • LaVonne A. G. Ortega Received: 1 August 2009 / Accepted: 26 October 2009 / Published online: 8 November 2009 Ó US Government 2009 Abstract Previous research has linked greater social connectedness with a lowered risk of self-directed violence among adolescents. However, few studies have analyzed the comparative strength of different domains of connect- edness (e.g., family, peers and school) to determine where limited resources might best be focused. Data to address that gap were taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Student Health and Safety Survey, administered to 4,131 7th–12th graders (51.5% female; 43.8% Hispanic; 22.6% African American or Black). Logistic regressions (controlling for age, gender, race/ ethnicity, family structure, academic performance, and depressive symptoms) suggest that family connectedness was a stronger predictor than connectedness to peers, school, or adults at school for non-suicidal self-harm, sui- cidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-fatal suicidal behav- ior. In some analyses, peer connectedness was unexpectedly a risk factor. Results have implications for prevention of suicide in adolescence, especially in the context of the current trend towards school-based prevention programs. Keywords Adolescents Á Suicide Á Family relations Á Peer relations Á School connectedness Introduction According to the most recent data available, approximately 1 in 7 adolescents has seriously considered suicide and approximately 1 in 14 have engaged in non-fatal suicidal behavior (Eaton et al. 2007). Despite these rates, only a few evidence-based interventions exist for suicide prevention among youth. Further, most such interventions are mental- health based referral and treatment strategies intended for youth who are identified either as at-risk (e.g., by a ‘‘gatekeeper’’ who learns of a student talking about suicide) or as having already engaged in non-fatal suicidal behavior (e.g., by emergency department personnel). While such interventions may prevent some at-risk youth from dying by their own hands, they will not stop the development and progression of self-harm and suicidal behavior in youth. Thus, additional studies of risk and protective factors to inform primary prevention of self-directed violence are needed. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. J. W. Kaminski (&) Á R. W. Puddy Á D. M. Hall Á A. E. Crosby Á L. A. G. Ortega Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, MS-F63, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA e-mail: JKaminski@cdc.gov R. W. Puddy e-mail: RPuddy@cdc.gov D. M. Hall e-mail: DMHall@cdc.gov A. E. Crosby e-mail: AEC1@cdc.gov L. A. G. Ortega e-mail: LOrtega1@cdc.gov S. Y. Cashman Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, MS-F64, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA e-mail: SCashman@cdc.gov 123 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:460–473 DOI 10.1007/s10964-009-9472-2