Psychological masochism: A systematic review of the literature on conflicts, defenses, and motives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on psychological masochism to identify hypotheses for examination in clinical studies. METHOD: We identified defenses, conflicts, and motives using standardized measures in 23 psychoanalytic papers. RESULTS: Three primary and three secondary subtypes of masochism emerged in the literature. Overall Gratification Inhibition (subtype I.1) was the "healthiest" form, associated with higher developmental level motives and neurotic defenses. The Global Conflict (I.2) was the least healthy form of masochism, consistent with personality disorder. It was associated with early developmental level motives and immature defenses, including depressive defenses, often associated with depression. Dominant Other (I.3) represented masochistic attachment problems, associated with early developmental level motives, object-related, image-distorting defenses, and narcissism. Of the secondary types, Separation-Abandonment (II.1) reflected object-related defenses, and separation-related motives. Rejection of Others (II.2) represented a sadistic-narcissistic form, associated with image-distorting and disavowal defenses, with both early and later developmental level motives. Finally, Sexual Pleasure vs. Guilt (II.3) was associated with autistic fantasy, and both early and later developmental level motives, suggesting a distinct traumatic origin and representing the juncture of sexual and psychological masochism. CONCLUSIONS: Analysts described six distinguishable types of masochism. Future studies should examine their validity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".