MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033177399 · doi:10.1080/00207590244000214

Defense mechanisms and coping strategies in conjugal relationships: An integration

2003· article· en· W2033177399 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCoping (psychology)Confirmatory factor analysisSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C oping strategies and defence mechanisms are used to describe people's responses to stressful situations. The concept of coping strategies comes from the social psychological tradition, whereas the concept of defence mechanisms comes from the psychoanalytic tradition. According to the traditional view, the two concepts are very different. However, recently, a growing number of researchers suggested that coping strategies and defence mechanisms are more interrelated than what was assumed previously. This study was aimed at documenting the relationship between both concepts in the context of predicting adjustment in a specific situation, marital relationships, one of the most well‐suited situations to investigate people's responses to stressful situations. The sample consisted of 157 couples. Each partner completed the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, the Defense Style Questionnaire, and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Two theoretical models, the independence model and the effectiveness model, accounting for the relationship between coping strategies and defence mechanisms were first tested, using confirmatory factor analyses. According to the independence hypothesis, one latent dimension should measure defence mechanisms and the other latent dimension should measure coping strategies. According to the effectiveness hypothesis, coping strategies and defence mechanisms could vary along two dimensions: adaptive and maladaptive ways of dealing with marital difficulties. Results revealed that the effectiveness hypothesis was a better representation of the relationship between the two concepts than the independence hypothesis. The unique contribution of defence mechanisms and coping strategies to the prediction of marital adjustment was next examined using multiple regression analyses. Again, results were generally congruent with the effectiveness hypothesis. Positive and negative relationships with marital adjustment were observed for both concepts. In addition, coping strategies did not result in more positive outcomes on marital adjustment than defence mechanisms. It seems that coping strategies and defence mechanisms have both their specificity and their shared characteristics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it