Skip to main content
Log in

The Conceptual Tragedy in Studying Defense Mechanisms

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of defense mechanism is interwoven with psychoanalytic theories of anxiety and psychic conflict. From its first formulation in 1894, its usefulness resides in the degree to which it helps to explain otherwise mysterious phenomena. Statistical approaches to the study of defense mechanisms, which have significantly increased in popularity in the past three decades, test isolated assumptions without reflection on how these are integrated into psychoanalytic theory, nor on what should be regarded as psychoanalytic data. Consequently, their results and their models have not provided useful insights into psychoanalytic theory. This paper aims to show how these issues in statistical approaches largely stem from disregarding discussions on the ontological status of defense mechanisms and the epistemological consequences linked to them. Studying defense mechanisms as they are manifested in external lifestyles, clouds the distinction between constructs (explanatory terms) and phenomena (empirical referents), which is furthermore necessary for a theoretical model to have explanatory value. Concrete examples are given regarding problems in statistical conceptualizations of defense mechanisms as well as the cursory explanations these tend to describe. Implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., revised). Washington, DC: Author.

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.

  • Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1081–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bibring, G. L., Dwyer, T. F., Huntingtion, D. S., & Valenstein, A. F. (1961). A study of the psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliest mother-child relationship. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 16, 9–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, J. S. (2004). 101 defenses: How the mind shields itself. New York: Routledge.

  • Brenner, C. (1975). Affects and psychic conflict. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 44(1), 5–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, C. (1981). Defense and defense mechanisms. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 50(4), 557–569.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, C. (1982). The mind in conflict (p. 200). New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. H. (1989). Recent contributions to the theory of defense mechanisms: A comparative view. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 37(4), 865–891.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (1987). The development of defense mechanisms. Journal of Personality, 55(4), 597–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (1991). Anger and the use of defense mechanisms in college students. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 39–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (1998). Coping and defense mechanisms: What's the difference? Journal of Personality, 66(6), 919–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms in action. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Cramer, P. (2015). Defense mechanisms: 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(2), 114–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P., & Brilliant, M. A. (2001). Defense use and defense understanding in children. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 297–322.

  • Davidson, K., & MacGregor, M. W. (1998). A critical appraisal of self-report defense mechanism measures. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 965–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1894). The neuro-psychosis of defense (the standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. III, 43–61). J. Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis. 

  • Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (the standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. IV). J. Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

  • Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety (the standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XX). J. Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

  • Freud, A. (1965). Diagnostic skills and their growth in psycho-analysis. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 46, 31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freud, A., Nagera, H., & Freud, W. E. (1965). Metapsychological assessment of the adult personality: The adult profile. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 20(1), 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. M. (1963). Topography and Systems in Psychoanalytic Theory. Psychological Issues Monogr. No. 10. New York: Int. Univ. Press. 

  • Gillett, E. (1987). Defense mechanisms versus defense contents. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 68, 261–269.

  • Hartmann, H. (1950). Psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 5(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kris, E. (1947). Problems in clinical research: Discussion remarks. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 32, 210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

  • McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic diagnosis: Understanding personality structure in the clinical process. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Meissner, W. W. (2016). A note on projective identification. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 28(1), 43–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. New York: Basic Books.

  • Rapaport, D. (1959). The structure of psychoanalytic theory: A systemizing attempt. In S. E. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Formulations of the person and the social context (Vol. III, pp. 57–163). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöbäck, H. (1973). The psychoanalytic theory of defensive processes. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöbäck, H. (1993). What is a mechanism of defense?. In The concept of defense mechanisms in contemporary psychology (pp. 25–37). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, G. E. (1971). Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms: A 30-year follow-up of 30 men selected for psychological health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24(2), 107–118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, G. E. (1987). A developmental view of old and new perspectives of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1(2), 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, G. E. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicans and researchers. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Pub.

  • Vaillant, G. E. (1994). Ego mechanisms of defense and personality psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 44–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, R. S. (1967). Development and metapsychology of the defense organization of the ego. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15(1), 130–149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, R. S. (1983). Defenses, defense mechanisms, and the structure of the mind. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 31, 201–225.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Stefan Mihalits.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the research and publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihalits, D.S., Codenotti, M. The Conceptual Tragedy in Studying Defense Mechanisms. Integr. psych. behav. 54, 354–369 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09515-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09515-6

Keywords

Navigation