Psychological Autopsy Structured on Individual Cases: Methodological Considerations for A New Protocol

Main Article Content

Franco Posa Jessica Leone Valeria Rondinelli Francesco Sclavi Matteo Posa

Abstract

Psychological autopsy is an investigative procedure used in cases of "equivocal death" (a situation in which the cause of death is uncertain); it originated in the early 1960s and has since spread to the United States, Europe, and especially Cuba. The initial MAP (Modelo de Autopsia Psicologica) protocol, developed specifically in Cuba, has since evolved into the more current MAPI (Modelo de Autopsia Psicologica Integrado). It is characterized by the use of a retrospective analysis of the deceased's life, with emphasis on risk factors, mental health history and interpersonal relationships.


The Psychological Autopsy is considered one of the most valuable suicide research tools. Information is collected and included in 16 categories (Shneidman) from multiple sources through structured interviews.


Despite its widespread use, the original PA model has several methodological problems that can be overcome through a revision of the protocol from a specialized perspective tailored to each case. The innovative PASIC (Psychological Autopsy Structured on Individual Cases) protocol aims to adapt the psychological autopsy protocol to each case, making it unique and personalized.  PASIC, therefore, is based on principles of individuality and its management by a single specialized professional figure.  This makes it more effective in identifying which subjects to interview and what type of interview to use. The professional will be able to select the appropriate measures to obtain reliable and effective sources of information. Through a review of the origin and development of the psychological autopsy, this article aims to describe the structural and operational features of the new PASIC method and its advantages over the previous protocols.

Keywords: Psychological autopsy, PASIC, MAPI, investigation, interview

Article Details

How to Cite
POSA, Franco et al. Psychological Autopsy Structured on Individual Cases: Methodological Considerations for A New Protocol. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 3, mar. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3719>. Date accessed: 20 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i3.3719.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Isometsä ET. Psychological autopsy studies--a review. Eur Psychiatry. 2001;16(7):379-385. doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(01)00594-6
2. Tu WQ, Zhao H. [Psychological autopsy and its limitation in application]. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009;25(5):380-382.
3. Cavanagh JTO, Carson AJ, Sharpe M, Lawrie SM. Psychological autopsy studies of suicide: a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2003;33(3):395-405. doi:10.1017/s0033291702006943
4. Caulkins C. The Psychological Autopsy: What, Who, and Why. Published online June 1, 2019.
5. Shneidman ES. The psychological autopsy. American Psychologist. 1994;49(1):75-76. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.1.75
6. Aquila I, Sacco MA, Gratteri S, Sirianni M, De Fazio P, Ricci P. The “Social-mobile autopsy”: The evolution of psychological autopsy with new technologies in forensic investigations on suicide. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2018;32:79-82. doi:10.1016/j.legalmed.2017.12.008
7. Canter, David V. Psychological autopsies. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Published online 2000. https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/8669/1/canterpsychological.pdf
8. Bonicatto Bruno, Teresita Garcia Perez, Raineri Rojas Lopez. L’ Autopsia Psicologica. L’indagine Nei Casi Di Morte Violenta o Dubbia. Franco Angeli; 2006.
9. Conner KR, Chapman BP, Beautrais AL, et al. Introducing the Psychological Autopsy Methodology Checklist. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2021;51(4):673-683. doi:10.1111/sltb.12738
10. Pouliot L, De Leo D. Critical issues in psychological autopsy studies. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2006;36(5):491-510. doi:10.1521/suli.2006.36.5.491
11. Sartori, G. La Memoria Del Testimone.; 2021.
12. Menon V, Varadharajan N, Bascarane S, Subramanian K, Mukherjee MP, Kattimani S. Psychological autopsy: Overview of Indian evidence, best practice elements, and a semi-structured interview guide. Indian J Psychiatry. 2020;62(6):631-643. doi:10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_331_20
13. Murre JMJ, Chessa AG. Why Ebbinghaus’ savings method from 1885 is a very “pure” measure of memory performance. Psychon Bull Rev. Published online September 7, 2022. doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02172-3
14. Odinot G, Wolters G, van Koppen PJ. Eyewitness memory of a supermarket robbery: a case study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law Hum Behav. 2009;33(6):506-514. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9152-x
15. Shermer M. The science of lying. When are we most (and least) likely to lie? Sci Am. 2014;310(4):87. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0414-87
16. Paniagua FA. Lying by children: why children say one thing, do another? Psychol Rep. 1989;64(3 Pt 1):971-984. doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3.971
17. Amado BG, Arce R, Fariña F, Vilariño M. Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2016;16(2):201-210. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
18. Gancedo Y, Fariña F, Seijo D, Vilariño M, Arce R. Reality Monitoring: A Meta-analytical Review for Forensic Practice. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 2021;13(2):99-110. doi:10.5093/ejpalc2021a10
19. Boyacioglu I, Akfirat S. Development and psychometric properties of a new measure for memory phenomenology: The Autobiographical Memory Characteristics Questionnaire. Memory. 2015;23(7):1070-1092. doi:10.1080/09658211.2014.953960
20. Lanciano T, Curci A, Matera G, Sartori G. Measuring the flashbulb-like nature of memories for private events: the flashbulb memory checklist. Memory. 2018;26(8):1053-1064. doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1428348
21. Ekman P, Friesen WV. Facial Action Coding System. Published online January 14, 2019. doi:10.1037/t27734-000
22. Sayette MA, Cohn JF, Wertz JM, Perrott MA, Parrott DJ. A Psychometric Evaluation of the Facial Action Coding System for Assessing Spontaneous Expression. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2001;25(3):167-185. doi:10.1023/A:1010671109788
23. Franco Posa, Jessica Leone, Valeria Rondinelli. Psychological Autopsy. A Possible Innovative Revision of the MAPI: Psychological Autopsy Structured on Individual Cases (PASIC). SS. 2021;11(5). doi:10.17265/2159-5526/2021.05.004
24. Hawton K, Appleby L, Platt S, et al. The psychological autopsy approach to studying suicide: a review of methodological issues. J Affect Disord. 1998;50(2-3):269-276. doi:10.1016/s0165-0327(98)00033-0
25. Hart CL, Lemon R, Curtis DA, Griffith JD. Personality Traits Associated with Various Forms of Lying. Psychol Stud. 2020;65(3):239-246. doi:10.1007/s12646-020-00563-x
26. Curtis DA, Hart CL. Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity. Psychiatr res clin pract. 2020;2(2):62-69. doi:10.1176/appi.prcp.20190046
27. Nyman TJ, Lampinen JM, Antfolk J, Korkman J, Santtila P. The distance threshold of reliable eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav. 2019;43(6):527-541. doi:10.1037/lhb0000342
28. Fan G, Wang Y, Yue Y, Lei J, Zhang P, Ding X. The impact of social motivation on the other-race effect under high and low social status. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):20353. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-24333-z
29. Jacobs D, Klein-Benheim M. The psychological autopsy: a useful tool for determining proximate causation in suicide cases. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1995;23(2):165-182.
30. Pridmore S, Walter G. Psychological autopsies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013;47(9):878-879. doi:10.1177/0004867413495929

Most read articles by the same author(s)