Table 2.

Extracted data from included studies about other depressive symptoms (Loneliness, Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, Interpersonal intimacy, Self-punitiveness, Anhedonia, Hopelessness, Anger, Insomnia, Suicidality)

Reference	Country	Sample	Symptoms	Measures of self-criticism and dependency	Measures of psychopathology	Analysis	Results
Schachter and Zlotogorski [74]	Israel	58 volunteers 35 males 35 females	Loneliness	DEQ	SRULS	Regression analysis Inter-correlational analysis	Self- criticism (β = 0.63, t = 6.761, p < 0.05) Dependency (β = 0.29, t = 2.888, p < 0.05) Dependency (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) Self-criticism (r = 0.67, p < 0.01)
Burke and Haslam, [19]	USA	74 depressed patients 39 females (53%) 35 males (47%) Age range: 19- 61 years Mean age = 39.0	Self-punitiveness (guilt, feelings of failure), Anhedonic symptoms (loss of interest, fatigue), Hopelessness (pessimism, suicidal ideation)	SAS, PSI-R, DEQ, DABS	BDI, IDD	Principal components analysis, Correlation analyses	Correlation analyses: - Self-direction and freedom from attachments component of autonomy (core autonomy) and anhedonic symptoms: r = 30, p < 0.01 - Concern with others’ disapproval component of dependency and self-punitive symptoms: r = 34, p < 0.01 - Self-criticism/perfectionism component of autonomy and self-punitive symptoms: r = 57, p < 0.001 - Self-criticism/perfectionism component of autonomy and hopelessness: r = 32, p < 0.01
Besser et al. [11]	Canada	167 volunteers 86 males 81 females Mean age = 21.61 SD = 4.07	Loneliness	DEQ (McGill revision)	CES-D UCLA Loneliness Scale-Revised	Zero-order correlations Regression analysis	Self-criticism (r = 0.43, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.62, p < 0.0001 for intimate and non-intimate relationships, respectively) Dependency (r = 0.22, p < 0.05 and r = 0.13, p = 0.22 for intimate and non-intimate relationships, respectively) CES-D (ß = 0.44, t = 3.94, p < 0.0001 and ß = 0.24, t = 2.18, p < 0.03 for relationship and no relationship subsamples, respectively) Self-criticism (ß = 0.22, t = 2.05, p < 0.04 and ß = 0.46, t = 4.28, p < 0.0001 for the relationship and no relationship subsamples, respectively) The low effect of dependency on loneliness found in the zero-order correlations for the romantic relationships group was no longer evident when controlling for participants’ levels of depressive symptoms (ß = 0.04, t = 0.43, p = 0.18 and ß = 0.05, t = 0.65, p = 0.5\2 for relationship and no relationship subsamples, respectively)
Fazaa and Page [36]	Canada	807 university students Caucasian (76%); the remaining 24% came from the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean, or Asia Mean age: 20 years	Suicidality	DEQ (66 items)	BDI-II Risk Rescue Rating Scale (lethality of attempts)	Correlations Standard multiple regressions	Self-criticism-risk (r = 0.53), Self-criticism-risk rescue (r = 0.55) Self-criticism subjective lethality (r = 0.42) Self-criticism-intent score (r = 0.49) Self-criticism-rescue (r = − 0.50) Self-criticism- subjective lethality (β = 0.50) Self-criticism-intensity of wish to die (β = 0.76) Dependency-subjective lethality (β = − 1.57) Dependency-intensity of wish to die (β = − 1.83)
Vanhuele et al. [80]	Belgium	134 adult outpatients (DMS-IV mild-severe Depression)	Suicidality	DEQ (66 items)	BDI-II	Latent class analysis	Self-directed aggression: self-mutilation -suicide attempts self-critical
Fazaa and Page [37]	Canada	96 students (13 male, 83 female) 75% Caucasian, remaining sample from Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Hispanic individuals	Suicidality (Impulsivity, intent, and lethality)	DEQ (66 items)	SIS (Suicide intent with previous attempt) (2 items) Dickman’s Impulsivity Inventory (23 items self-report) Likert type item (Suicide item) Risk Rescue Rating Scale (Lethality of attempts) (10 items)	Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) Receiver Operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis	Correlation Dependency-State impulsivity r = 0.40, n = 96, p < 0.01) Correlation Self- criticism- State Impulsivity (r = 0.35, n = 96, p < 0.01)
O’ Riley and Fiske [57]	USA	636 adults (70.9% women; 92.2% European American) Age range: 18–24 years	Suicidality	PSI-II	SBQ-14 (propensity for suicidal behaviour) (14 items)	Pearson’s correlation (relationship between autonomy and propensity for suicidality) Two multiple linear regressions (association between propensity for suicidality and autonomy subscales)	Young sample: Autonomy- suicidality (r = 0.27) Older sample: Need for Control-suicidality (r = 0.26) Defensive Separation (β = 0.11, SE = 0.03, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.16), Perfectionism (β = 0.38, SE = 0.06, P < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.50), Need for Control (β =  − 0.05, SE = 0.04, p > 0.05, 95% CI =  − 0.01, 0.04) and suicidality in younger sample; Need for Control (β = 0.21, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.37), Defensive Separation (β − 0.04, SE = 0.06, p > 0.013, 95% CI =  − 0.14, 0.07), Perfectionism (β =  − 0.10, SE = 0.14, p > 0.013, 95% CI =  − 0.38, 0.19) and suicidality in older sample
Campos et al. [23]	Portugal	105 volunteers adults (51 male, 54 female) Age range: 19–64 years M: 36.3 SD: 11.5	Suicidality Through distress	DEQ (66 items)	BSI (53 items self-report) Sociodemographic Questionnaires (2 items on suicidality)	Structural equation modelling (SEM)	Direct association model: Self-criticism-Suicidality: (β = 0.40, t = 2.394, p < 0.017) Dependency-Suicidality: (β = 0.10, t = 0.712, ns) Mediational structural equation modelling: Self-criticism-Suicidality through distress: (β = 0.54, t = 6.452, p < 0.0001) Dependency-Distress: (β = 0.36, t = 4.459, p < 0.0001) Distress-Suicidality: (β = 0.51, t = 2.284, p < 0.022)
Dorahy and Hanna [32]	New Zealand and Northern Ireland	315 students 17.1% males (n = 54) 82.9% females (n = 261) Age range = 18–64 years Mean age = 22.54 SD = 7.24	Shame, guilt, embarrassment Interpersonal intimacy	DEQ-SF	DES-IV, shame, guilt, and hostility-inward subscales (SG&HI-DES-IV)	Path analysis	Standardized Regression Coefficients for Each of the Model Paths (p =  < 0.01): Introjective orientation - Embarrassment: β = 0.281 - Shame: β = 0.381 - Guilt: β = 0.232 - Interpersonal Intimacy: β = − 0.426 Anaclitic orientation: - Embarrassment: β = 0.359 - Guilt: β = 0.215 - Interpersonal Intimacy: β = 0.266
Abi-Habib and Luyten [1]	Belgium	253 community adults 58.33% females Mean age = 32.21 SD = 5.40	Anger	DEQ	BDI STAXI	Zero-order correlations	Self-criticism (p < 0.01) - State anger: r = 0.177 - Trait anger: r = 0.393 - Anger-control: r = − 0.220 - Anger-in: r = 0.455 - Anger-out: r = 0.319 Dependency - State anger: r = 0.045 - Trait anger: r = 0.060 - Anger-control: r = 0.070 - Anger-in: r = 0.119 - Anger-out: r = − 0.117
Campos and Holden [21]	Portugal	810 non-clinical adults Age range: 19–67 years M: 36.34 SD: 12.46	Suicidality	DEQ (66 items)	CES-D (20 items) SBQ-R (4 items)	Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) Receiver Operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis	Standardized discriminant function coefficient (0.46 (95% CI (0.13, 0.66)) for self-criticism
Campos and Holden [22]	Portugal	200 adults (102 men, 98 women) Age range: 19–67 years M: 36,7 years D: 12,8	Suicidality (ideation and attempt, recent ideation, intention and future probability)	DEQ (66 items)	CES-D (20 items) The Psychache Scale (13 items self-report) INQ (TB-PB) (15 items self-report) Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire-Revised (4 items)	Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)	Indirect effects Self-criticism-suicidality: (β = 0.20, t = 4.17, p < 0.001; SE = 0.029, 95% CI [0.11, 0.30], p < 0.001) Neediness-suicidality: (β = 0.21, t = 4.71, p < 0.001; SE = 0.028, 95% CI [0.14, 0.30], p < 0.001)
O’ Keefe et al. [56]	USA	113 Under-graduated students (75,3% women; 93,4% Caucasian, 5,7% African Americans, 0,9% Asian Americans) M: 19.43 DS: 2.28	Suicidality	PSI.II (48 items)	CES-D (20 items) INQ (TB-PB)	Structural Equation Modelling	Time 1 autonomy predicted Time 2 depression symptoms (β = 0.137, p = 0.002) Time 2 depression symptoms predicted Time 3 perceived burdensomeness (β = 0.251, p = 0.002) and Time 3 thwarted belongingness (β = 0.283, p = 0.005)
Silva et al. [76]	Chile	177 undergraduate students (Normal: 52 introjective: 38 anaclitic: 38 mixed AI: 49) 71 males; 106 females Mean age = 21.1 SD = 1.65	Anhedonia	DEQ	BDI (anhedonia and melancholia subscales)	One-way ANOVA post-hoc comparisons	Anhedonia: group effect [F (3, 176) = 5.64, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.08] normal vs. introjective (ΔM =  − 1.20, SE = 0.32, p < 0.01 Bonferroni) normal vs. mixed AI (ΔM = –0.98, SE = 0.30, p < 0.01 Bonferroni)
Park and Kim [60, 61]	South Korea	334 students (113 male, 200 female) Age range: 19–27 years M: 21.51 DS: 1.95	Suicidality	Personal Style Inventory-II (Korean version; 18–19 items	K-INQ14) (14 items) (DSI-SS) (4 items) K-DBI-II (21 items)	Correlations Hierarchical regression	Sociotropy—BDI-II: r (311) = 0.23, p < 0.001 Autonomy-BDI-II: r (311) = 0.25, p < 0.00 Autonomy-Suicide ideation: r (311) = 0.16, p < 0.01 Model 2: PB (β = 0.24, t (298) = 0.42, p < 0.001) and sociotropic personality, β =  − 0.11, t (298) =  − 2.26, p < 0.05 predicted suicide Model 3: Significance TB and sociotropy (β =  − 0.11, t (294) =  − 2.01, p < 0.05) and PB and autonomy (β = 0.19, t (294) = 2.94, p < 0.01)
Bar et al. [4]	Israel	161 young adults 36 males 125 females Age range = 20–30 years Mean age = 25 SD = 1.4	Insomnia	DEQ-SC6	BDI-II PSQI ISI	Regression analysis	Association between self-criticism (Time 1) and insomnia (Time 2) evidenced a trend (β = 0.12, SE = 0.07, p = 0.09, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.26]) Two-wave interaction: the self-criticism by depressive symptoms interaction predicted time 2 insomnia (β = 0.19, SE = 0.07, p = 0.007, 95% CI [0.05, 0.33]) The positive association between time 1 self-criticism and time 2 insomnia was marginally significant for individuals with high (1SD above the mean) levels of depressive symptoms (B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p = 0.07, 95% CI [− 0.00, 0.08]), but not for individuals with mean (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p = 0.40, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.05]) and below mean (1SD below the mean) levels of depressive symptoms (B =  − 0.00, SE = 0.02, p = 0.68, 95% CI [− 0.05, 0.03]) At 2SDs above the mean of depressive symptoms, the positive association between time 1 self-criticism and time 2 insomnia was statistically significant (B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00, 0.12])