Defensive Flexibility and Its Relation to Symptom Severity, Depression, and Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have examined which individual defense mechanisms are related with mental health, and which are linked with psychopathology. However, the idea that a flexible use of defensive mechanisms is related to psychological wellbeing remained a clinical assumption, which this study sought to test empirically. A total of 62 (N = 62) outpatients participated in the study and were assessed with the Symptom Checklist-90R and the Social Adjustment Self-rated Scale. A subsample of 40 participants was further assessed using the Hamilton Depression (HAMD-21) and Anxiety scales (HAMA-21). The first therapy session of all participants was transcribed and rated using the Defense Mechanisms Ratings Scales (), and the Overall Defensive Functioning (ODF) score, which indicates the maturity of one's defensive functioning, was computed. An indicator of flexible use of defenses was also calculated based on the Gini Concentration C measure. Results showed that defensive flexibility, but not ODF, could predict anxiety scores. Symptom severity was predicted by both ODF and defensive flexibility, although in directions opposite to our predictions. Results suggest that defensive flexibility captures another aspect of an individual's functioning not assessed by the ODF, and that it is a promising new way of documenting defensive functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".