Child Psychiatry and Human Development

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 427–436 | Cite as

Assessing Defense Structure in School-Age Children Using the Response Evaluation Measure-71-Youth Version (REM-Y-71)

  • Katy B. Araujo
  • Sanja Medic
  • Jessica Yasnovsky
  • Hans SteinerEmail author
Original Article


This study used the Response Evaluation Measure-Youth (REM-Y-71), a self-report measure of 21 defense reactions, among school-age children. Participants were elementary and middle school students (n=290; grades 3–8; age range: 8–15; mean=11.73). Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor defense structure consistent with structure among high school and adult samples. The composite REM-Y defense scores for each factor were significant predictors of social desirability, using the Children’s Defensiveness Scale (CDS); anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC); and psychosocial functioning. This study represents the first cross-sectional empirical analysis of overall defense structure and use among children and early adolescents.


Defense Children Anxiety Psychosocial functioning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Freud A (1979) The ego and the mechanisms of defense, vol. 2. International Universities Press, Inc, Madison, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cramer P (1991) The development of defense mechanisms. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bond M (1986) An empirical study of defense styles. In: Vaillant GE (eds) Empirical studies of ego mechanisms of defense. Am Psychiatr Press, Inc, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaillant GE (1977) Adaptation to life. Little, Brown & Company, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steiner H, Araujo K, Koopman S (2001) The Response Evaluation Measure (REM-71): a new instrument for the measurement of defenses in adults and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Psy 158:467–473Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauser ST, Borman EH, Bowlds MK, Powers SI, Jacobson AM, Noam GG, Knoebber K (1990) Understanding coping within adolescence: ego development and coping strategies. In: Cummings EM, Greene A, Karraker K (eds). Life-span developmental psycholog. Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cramer P, Block J (1998) Preschool antecedents of defense mechanism use in young adults: a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:159–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loevinger J (1966) The meaning and measurement of ego development. Am Psychol 21:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer P, Blatt SJ (1990) Use of the TAT to measure change in defense mechanisms following intensive psychotherapy. J Pers Assess 54:236–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandler MJ, Paget KF, Koch DA (1978) The child’s demystification of psychological defense mechanisms: a structural and developmental analysis. Dev Psychol 14:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haan N (1990) Emotion and defensiveness. Pol Psychol J 21:307–318Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaillant GE (1971) Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms: a 30-year follow-up of men selected for psychological health. Arch Gen Psychiatr 24:107–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson AM, Beardslee W, Gelfand E, Hauser ST, Noam GG, Powers SI (1992) An approach to evaluating adolescent ego defense mechanisms using clinical interviews. In: Vaillant GE (eds) Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feldman SS, Araujo KB, Steiner H (1996) Defense mechanisms in adolescents as a function of age, sex, and mental health status. J Am Acad Child Psy 34:1344–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Araujo K, Ryst E, Steiner H (1999) Adolescent defense style and life stressors. Child Psychiat Hum D 30:19–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yasnovsky J, Araujo K, King M, Mason M, Pyle R, Shaw R, Steiner H (2003) Defenses in school age children: children’s vs. parents’ report. Child Psychiat Hum D 33(3):307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laor N, Wolmer L, Cicchetti D (2001) The comprehensive assessment of defense style: measuring defense mechanisms in children and adolescents. J Nerv Ment Dis 189(6):360–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolmer L, Laor N, Cicchetti D (2001) Validation of the Comprehensive Assessment of Defense Style (CADS): mother’s and children’s responses to the stresses of missile attacks. J Nerv Ment Dis 189(6):369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tomaka J, Blascovich J, Kelsey RM (1992) Effects of self-deception, social desirability, and repressive coping on psychophysiological reactivity to stress. Pers Soc Psychol B 18:616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCrae RR (1986) Well-being scales do not measure social desirability. J Gerontol 41:390–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spielberger CD (1983) State-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Mind Garden Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crandall VC, Crandall VJ, Katkovsky W (1965) A children’s social desirability questionnaire. J Consult Psychol 29:27–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Erickson S, Feldman S, Steiner H (1996) Defense mechanisms and adjustment in normal adolescents. Am J Psychiat 46:455–460Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zwick WR, Velicer WF (1996) Factor influencing: five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull 99:432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steiner H, Feldman S (1995) Two approaches the measurement of adaptive style: comparison of normal, psychosomatically ill, and delinquent adolescents. J Am Acad Child Psy 34(2):180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katy B. Araujo
    • 1
  • Sanja Medic
    • 1
  • Jessica Yasnovsky
    • 1
  • Hans Steiner
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Child Psychiatry and Child DevelopmentStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations